I think it'll be a good idea, not sure how many people will pay attention to it though. Christopher (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, ragers gonna rage. But what's most important is showing in good faith that we can actually be reasoned with. With the proposed edit box notice, we're just putting it out there that for anyone who wishes to see changes to some article, letting Cuck-O-Tron 3000 phrase their complaints for them is likely not going to be their most constructive route forward. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of criticism seems to be "you're all SJWs/cucks etc though, I've never come across an example of genuinely constructive criticism beyond typo correction. Can you think of any off the top of your head? Christopher (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm by no means suggesting we're perfect though, just that genuine constructive criticism is drowned out by trolls. Christopher (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see trolls drowning anything out. In fact, they're typically swept off the platform pretty quickly in the vast majority of cases. And sure, I've come across many instances of "genuinely constructive criticism beyond typo correction" — certainly several tens of times, perhaps even a hundred times or more (in my two highly active years at the site)? Besides, you seem to perhaps be confusing FCP's above proposed template with some kind of "troll/shitpost protection measure"? I assure you it's not. If nothing else, this edit notice is just another chance for us to earnestly offer people the chance to simply play by the rules (which seems to me a win-win). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I was sure it must have happened somewhere, what I really meant by "trolls drowning people out" is more things like someone having a detailed criticism of one of our articles and then in their last sentence daring to question our rationality. Then all they'd likely get is "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!"Drink! and have none of their actual criticisms addressed. I should've phrased it better. Christopher (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like an excellent idea, as far as I understand it. IMO, you should also make the text link clearly to "What is a rationalwiki article?", considering how many BoNs cry foul about things covered in plain English on that page (bias, snark, confusing us for an encyclopedia, etc). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, could it also say something like: "(3) Don't just say "I hate it, blank it all". Provide a constructive suggestion for alternate article text. (4) Remember to include credible sources!"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. I agree with Percy: encourage them to give sources. Bongolian (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

cool idea, it can be surprising how things like this can actually give people pause Vorarchivist (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Most people on RW are reasonably cooperative (even if having quirky sense of humour/going off at a tangent/needing some help to operate in the wikiverse etc); some people have particular bees in their bonnets/get into 'who blinks last' exchanges and similar; some people enjoy 'stirring' because they think it is the spirit of RW (including the "daring" - is this another version of "just asking questions"?) - and then there are those whose 'views at a significant angle to reality' are being challenged, those who just wish to complain; the 'look at me being a nuisance (till I am blocked)' and the real trolls and other nasties. ('Just summarising') 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whilst there aren't really any rules on it, the "goat" section is generally about discussing the proposed change. Not discussion of goats. Doesn't particularly matter and it's a common mistake to make, just thought I'd let you know. Christopher (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And discussion of goats is always preferred over discussion of things that are not goats. Christopher (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

One thing to have, another thing to enforce it. So, if there are comments that violate it, what would be the proper course of action? I'm iffy on outright deleting it, not because the troll will cry out "censorship" (that's not my concern), but because people might not use their judgement wisely and delete things they disagree with it. I do guess that engagement and pointing out the template works, but it only goes so far sometimes in testing patience... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As the IP is overtly out to amuse, and has informed, are they off-message, or abiding to the spirit of Rationalwiki? 86.191.125.209 (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Going to agree with GreenMario. Seems like alot of work. Also I like to have arguments whit crazy people. 2d4chanfag (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Which of the above persons are you referring to in particular (and do you mean 'with' or 'wit', or do you not give a whit?) 86.146.99.26 (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think 2d4chanfag is referring to anyone in particular, could be any of the many cranks who, instead of providing any constructive criticism, just say "YOUR[sic]ALL CUCKS LOL FAG I THOUGHT THIS WAS CALLED RATIONALWIKI1111!!!oneoneelventy11one!!111one!!!11!! Or a variation thereof. Christopher (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@LGM: If a talkpage critic is shitty and boring and vague, then nothing needs to happen. As the maxim goes: If it's shit, don't touch it. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 18:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Easier said than done, given that it can be difficult to identify someone who is genuinely critical, but uses abrasive language, a concern troll, and an outright troll. It's more often than not that someone will come and respond. Anyhow, from my experience, a lot of people don't pay attention to talk page notices (when they should grumble grumble) so I will question its effectiveness in the future. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Does argan oil deserve a RW article (and not just to have a picture of the goats in question) - or a section somewhere? 86.146.99.26 (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@LGM You must become more zen, grasshopper. Indeed, the day all drive-by whine ceases completely is the day we're no longer being read by anyone. Besides, if we devolve into a perfectly insular community, group polarization becomes a serious risk to our rationality — an effect which is "increased by settings in which people repeat and validate each other's statements", as TOW puts it. As such, there's basically no type of talkpage criticism that I personally mind a priori. Best case, criticisms are brought to the fore which actually adress something that ought to change in the article (leaving us with improved content). "Worst" case, the rants serve to provide essential insight into the heart and mind of ye olde crank — in rare cases, even adding to our esteemed crack-Potédex. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

A Twitter exchange I saw actually. I looked up our article and went "huh, why isn't this cover" and saw the nominee template on talk and tracked through the archives for the nom - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty fucking obvious Spicer was saying Hitler did not use chemical weapons on the battlefield (Hitler himself was wounded in a chemical weapons attack in WWI). Trying to make something of it other than what it is will only backfire, and discredit RW's Holocaust denial article. No different than calling everybody who scratched their ass or sneezed during Obama's lectures on morality and Obamacare rather than undivided devotion labeled as a racist. When will you guys ever learn? nobs 19:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh lovely, I can already see the RW page being typed up. In all seriousness, if this isn't going to mar the reputation of the furry fandom, I don't know what will. The living oxymoron (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems it's having a positive effect? Like, it's a nice conversation starter that can lead into other furriness. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 16:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

She sent me pictures of the ear pain medicines at the pharmacy to ask which one I thought was best.

Every single one was useless homeopathic garbage after googling them. Every. Single. One.

How can you go to a pharmacy looking for over-the-counter medication for a specific problem(ear pain) and literally see nothing but water? What the fuck Walgreens? ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 21:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(I recommended oral acetaminophen(i.e. Tylenol) if she thought it wasn't going to be bad enough to warrant a doctor). ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 21:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Painkillers block the pain receptors in the brain, rather than shutting off the perticular nerves sending the pain signal (in the ear in your case). If you want to relieve the pain, then use general everyday painkillers. If you want to cure the pain's cause, you need something more specific. What does your doctor say? Bicyclewheel 11:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Ear trouble is a bitch, since it's one of the most insufferable places to have problems in, while at the same time being one of the most fragile systems in the body (and trying to "treat" it yourself risks causing serious damage!). Be careful NOT to use any shitty OTC ear washing products, Ikan! They do more harm than good. Whatever the issue is, it's rarely caused by wax — and even when it is, you NEED a qualified ENT doctor to perform any such procedure on you if said specialist finds need for it, etc... Ear pain/hearing loss is a bitch, but don't squirt a bunch of shit in your ear or dig around in your ear canal, ESPECIALLY not with cotton swabs (they are meant ONLY for surface cleaning, and you WILL push the wax deeper if you go in deep with them). Instead, take oral meds, use nasal spray (it reduces ear swelling slightly), see an ENT if need be and — most importantly — let things take its time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I will also note that it's paracetamol alone which works the way Bicycle Wheel describes (which makes it excellent for ear pain). Ibuprofen, as brought up by David, might help as well by virtue of being an NSAID. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You guys are missing the point. The problem is a major American pharmacy chain has a section devoted to treating a specific problem where none of the medicines are real. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 15:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it's not that I missed that. It pisses me off to hear, truly (and I'm relieved that all Swedish pharmacies keep that hokum out). It's just that I recall having read something about that happening before. But I will agree that it seems uniquely derp to hear that ALL the options were homeopathic. I mean, what kinda godforsaken hippie pharmacy did you send her to? Cause I worry for you and your countrymen if ALL-homeopathy treatment is becoming the new OTC standard. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Walgreens is one of the three big pharmacy chain stores(CVS and rite-aid are the other two) in the US, with no particular focus on alt-med compared to its competitors. You cannot go into a pharamacy in the US, grab an arbitrary OTC treatment, and count on it being actual medicine. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 17:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Depending on what's causing the earache, you might try the Bronk-Aid asthma pills. These contain both ephedrine as a decongestant, and guaifenesin to loosen up phlegm and snot. A lot of earaches are caused by fluid and pressure due to inflammation from upper respiratory tract infections or allergies. Decongestants and expectorants will help. I also recommend chewing a large wad of bubble gum. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

She should see a doctor since it could be an infection requiring antibiotics. Bongolian (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Man — you're gonna have to be much clearer next time. The compulsive helpfulness of us RationalWikians came to overshadow your point Haha. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried oxycodone? They seem to work for everything else. The VA Hospitals give em out like Skittels. nobs 15:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

“”Terran:What galactic group built their base upon the ruins? Did they have conical heads?
Nabrac: TERRAN. THERE WERE MANY BEINGS WITH A VARIETY OF FEATURES. CONICAL SKULL SHAPE IS BUT ONE.

In other words:

I'm aware that contactees tend to unwittingly base their own descriptions of the aliens on popular culture, but this is just ridiculous. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The sov cit I linked earlier engages in Antarctica trutherism. Is it making a comeback or something? Speaking of, the woo surrounding Terra Australis is interesting (they got bored of looking for it and named a different continent "Australia," and it is only by coincidence that Terra Australis existed) Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 07:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There's more to the blogger than just that. The blogger retweeted this:

From the looks of the politics in the USA, things are shifting fast... never have I seen so much chaos which is the sign of a sea change in everything. People ask me if "do you think Trump is a being of light?" They used to ask that about Obama! Everyone is a being of light. Some just have the wick turned down a bit. Everyone has a mix of contrasts within them that needs to be reconciled in pure love internally by themselves.

I do not think Trump is a savior or a villain. He is smart and good at making deals. And he knows how to handle very large bankruptcy which is perhaps his most important skill for this moment as CEO of the USA Corp.

Now that the Trump regime has formally been installed, the real battle over the future of the planet earth can begin in earnest. On the one side we find the Western military industrial complex and on the other we find the ancient bloodline families. Another way of putting it is the battle is now between those who have the guns and those who control the butter (money) supply. Yet a different lens for analyzing the upcoming struggle is to see it as China (Asia) vs. the US (the West), however that is too simplistic. The “West” as things now stand includes Japan plus North and South Korea and maybe even Vietnam while “Asia” includes Germany and other Rothschild controlled nation states.

Trump’s speech bemoaned how the American middle class has been destroyed and US industry gutted by the globalists and promised to restore American industry and infrastructure. He also hinted the military industrial complex was about to share some of its secret technologies with the world when he said “We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the earth from the miseries of disease and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.”

Now I heard the Planet Nibiru really is the cause of the rise in the ocean's temperature and nothing anthropomorphic. Any truth to this? I read it in the CIA blog, the Washington Post. nobs 19:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

this one is interesting. Individually, the beginnings of their thoughts always catch my interest and make me think "huh, there may be something to this." Then they launch into the explanation and completely lose me. From there I look at their message as a whole and realize it's a jumbled mess. 71.188.73.196 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@nobs I don't know how the heck you managed to read that WaPo article as somehow suggesting (or even implying) that "AGW is being caused by Niburu". I mean, it clearly says "No" right there in the headline. Did you get as far as reading the headline, I wonder? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

For better or for worse, the Bar has a good share of political discussion. The Elections WIGO is rather moribund since the culmination of last year's Clown car. I propose renaming the Elections WIGO to the Politics WIGO. This will, for example, let us keep the Trump drama out of WIGO World, and make the existing WIGO page more useful and entertaining. What do you think? Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it makes sense because not all countries have elections, although it won't always be obvious where to put an entry (controversial law, major change in leadership). --Cmonk (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, occasionally there has been a Blogs versus Clogs versus World debate, but i trust the mobacracy to sort it out. It should be relatively easy for anyone to judge if a politics-related event is relevant to the world, or if it's of topical interest. People outside the US may not be particularly interested in what some alt-right asshat on Trump's staff is up to, for example. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm from outside the US and I can't get enough of what the alt-right asshats in the White House are up to. 85.234.65.51 (talk) (Sophie) 08:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Also our current format misses out on all the wierd white house news these days and make it more useful in the day to day instead of taking it out every once and while Vorarchivist (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This is just stap one to bring the world under one government. The Terran Republic will raise up to be a great power in this galaxy.2d4chanfag (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@S.H. DeLong. I'd be concerned, but I wouldn't worry too much. N. Korea has done many nuclear tests. [3]. Reports that the US will strike if they do another test may be overstated (it happens, even with normally reliable news media). I think what you're seeing is the US preparing for a worst-case scenario: i.e. N. Korea launches a nuke that's aimed dangerously close to, or directly at Japan, China, or S. Korea. There are various methods [4], [5] for knocking such a missile out, although the most effective ones are probably classified. Leuders (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This is scheduled to be an underground test, sort of like Fourth of July fireworks for a national holiday. We can knock down a NK missile test with all sorts of electronic gadgetry to make it veer off coarse, as has been done to the last few. We got all sorts of other shit to disrupt their power grid, radiowave, and electronic communications. If they really want to set it off, it could be done manually with a suicide bomber.

And if you wanna be pissed off at a Westerner for rising tensions and nuclear proliferation, be pissed off at the God damn Clintons; they are the mutherfuckin' pieces of shit that paid NK to build the goddam bomb, so long as they wouldn't give Bill any trouble while he was in office. nobs 04:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

All this sabre rattling and displays of even bigger bombs and the stated intention of regime change just make the likes of north korea and iran more likely to develop and more convinced of the need for nuclear weapons. Bombs alone will not achieve the stated end, nor is there any thought of dealing with the aftermath as per iraq. History repeats itself. Are you still convinced Trump has any kind of plan? As for suicide bombers with nukes, its not nk or iran you need you should be worried about, its existing nuclear states failing that should be the worry - Pakistan should be more of a concern. That being said, i find it difficult to begrudge even awful regimes such as NK and iran a nuclear deterrent in face of our own hypocrisy is maintaining and updating our own and our own increased increased belligerence towards these states. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's my theory: the Pentagon is running the country. The Commander-in-Chief is on auto pilot giving the reins over to the generals-as he said as much he'd do on the campaign trail. For eights years the international situation deteriorated as the Pentagon was shut out and ignored (Obama went thru 4 Defense Secretaries in 8 years). But these military planners watch moment by moment, always ready with a next step strategic response. Now we are going thru a "catch up" phase to rectify balance. Witness: Syria, MOAB, NK, etc etc. War is diplomacy carried on by other means. nobs 14:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the actual quote is "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means" (source). Setting aside the questionable wisdom of having a country run by the military, war is not diplomacy, unless we really want to give up on words and meaning (I don't). --Cmonk (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The context in which Clausewitz is speaking is, relations between peoples and nations do not stop simply because diplomatic notes are no longer exchanged. And to understand this context you need familiarity with a few chapters leading up to the famous dictum:

3.B. On the Magnitude of the Object of the War and the Efforts to be Made

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘From an analysis given on the same website: "One of the main sources of confusion about Clausewitz's approach lies in his dialectical method of presentation. For example, Clausewitz's famous line that "War is merely a continuation of Politik," while accurate as far as it goes, was not intended as a statement of fact. It is the antithesis in a dialectical argument whose thesis is the point—made earlier in the analysis—that "war is nothing but a duel ... on a larger scale." His synthesis ... resolves the deficiencies of the two earlier bald statements, indicating that war is neither "nothing but" an act of brute force nor "merely" a rational act of politics or policy. Rather, it is a dynamic, inherently unstable interaction of the forces of violent emotion, chance, and rational calculation on all sides." I read the chapters that you recommended, but not being a Clausewitz expert, I can only defer to others as to what he did or didn't mean.

Clausewitz's book is titled "On War", not "On Diplomacy", so it is not surprising that he relates everything to war. The online translation seems to have a slightly different text than yours: "Does the cessation of diplomatic notes stop the political relations between different nations and Governments?" I can't be certain of the meaning the words "diplomacy", "policy" and "politics" in the translation compared to the original. But there is no point in torturing the language to try to make Clausewitz say something that he may or may not have meant. The start of a war is a failure of diplomacy. Diplomacy can (optionally) still go on in parallel (not replaced) and bring an end to the war, but it is not about "the overthrow of the enemy". While I do not have a solid grasp of military tactics and strategies, I do understand that people suffer and die while the political game of war is going on.

Finally Clausewitz claims: "There is, upon the whole, nothing more important in life than to find out the right point of view from which things should be looked at and judged of, and then to keep to that point; for we can only apprehend the mass of events in their unity from one standpoint; and it is only the keeping to one point of view that guards us from inconsistency." I do not subscribe to this point of view, because this is how we fail to recognize our own biases. There are other minor points on which I disagree (maybe it is the translation, or the thesis/antithesis confuses me). In the end, I would still prefer to avoid another war, but the big decisions are out of my hands. Anyway, thanks for the reference. --Cmonk (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm speeking from memory of the 1976 translation, which isn't online. The 1943 version is abridged, and doesn't carry these final chapters. Chapters 4 discusses Total War, such as WWII; chapt. 5 a War of Limited Aims, such as the Gulf War of 1991-merely expel Saddam from Kuwait and not regime change. As you get into chapter 6, you realize Clausewitz was ignored by Hindenburg & Ludendorf in WWI. Clausewitz emphasizes that despite war's violent and emotional nature tending toward the extreme, The political object comes to the fore (1976 trans). That when diplomatic notes no longer are exchanged, the military men take over (Bay of Pigs, for example, after diplomatic relations with Cuba were cut off). But in a Total War of Attrition, such as WWI was, the political object was subordinated to the military object. This is what this chapter forwarns against. The political object - even though diplomats are no longer speaking - must remain the focus. By 1917-18, the whole Imperial German civil government melted away, and the whole nation, economy, and government were serving the military which was fighting a lost cause.

Let me just lift out two paragraphs that serve our purposes well in this translation. (Sorry for the repetion) The first from a merely personal, moral point of view;

"There is, upon the whole, nothing more important in life than to find out the right point of view from which things should be looked at and judged of, and then to keep to that point; for we can only apprehend the mass of events in their unity from one standpoint; and it is only the keeping to one point of view that guards us from inconsistency.'

And secondly, to emphasize the military objective serving the political objective (the Anglo-American tradition of military serving civilian leadership we take for granted; fortunately the German & Russian traditions now also see and accept this principal. In China, the Communist party basically is the military, supported by a massive, growing, private sector with no democratic rights).

"That the political point of view should end completely when war begins, is only conceivable in contests which are wars of life and death, from pure hatred: as wars are in reality, they are as we before said, only the expressions or manifestations of policy itself. The subordination of the political point of view to the military would be contrary to common sense, for policy has declared the war; it is the intelligent faculty, war only the instrument, and not the reverse. The subordination of the military point of view to the political is, therefore, the only thing which is possible."

So in all cases, the first question is, What are we trying to achieve? in too many cases, the original political object becomes obscured, or forgotten. Syria (from the internal parties perspectives) now, Vietnam, and WWII are some of the best examples. Whereas the 1991 Gulf War or Civil War are good examples of wars being fought through to their finish with the desired policy aim intact.

American policy in all its foreign wars can best be described in the following nonsensical anecdote (I tell it better live, but I'll try it here in writing):

The Americans soldiers beats down the enemy, disarms him, has him laying flat on his back, standing over him with his rifle and extended bayonet at the enemies throat. Than, with his blood pumping, shouts, "God damn it! You better accept human rights and freedom of speech". The poor, broken, helpless, defeated enemy then raises his head and screams, "FUCK YOU!". Then the dutiful American soldier lays down his weapon, extends his hand and says, "Now you got it, brother.

I'm just not so sure this time-tested policy works against jihadis. nobs 06:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Here for example, a prime example of a violation of Clausewitz dictum: using military force with no political object, stated in plain terms:

"We are currently doing everything we can to bomb, strafe and use missiles to carry the rebels into power in Libya. We want them to win. We just don’t know who they are.” -Hillary Clinton, June 23, 2013. Cite: Preston, Bryan (June 23, 2011). "Hillary Clinton to Libya skeptics: 'Whose side are you on?'". PJMedia website/PJTatler. nobs 22:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

And sport is a continuation of war by other means (see Trobriand Island Cricket).
Things would be much safer if the leaders of countries had to do a bout of hand to hand combat before they declared war. 86.191.125.172 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what the game of polo is. It was training for knights (fighter pilots would be the modern equivalent) to swing a sword on horseback and lop off a footsoldiers head. nobs 01:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's getting near Zero hour Pyongyang time,,,they got light weight nuke subs off the West Coast...if this is thermonuclear Armageddon some of us might not make it, I just wanted say it's been fun knowing you guys. And if I don't make it, I'll put in a word for you with the good Lord and tell him you guys aren't the big assholes you want people to believe. And remember, if this really is the big one, it's Barack Obama's fault. Why do you think he's hiding out in Tahaiti? He knew it was coming. nobs

I'll save you a weenie for the big roast down under, nobs. I hear that they're only letting Hyper-Calvinists go upstairs. Bongolian (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone keeping a running tally of all the things nobs has been wrong about? It would be exhausting work but fruitful... Hentropy (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Watched the big parade on streaming video hoping to get a glimpse of nuclear annhilation. Those guys are good. They should book em for halftime at the Rose Bowl. Followed up by a bunch of Stalinist music videos. Don't they have any commercials? nobs 06:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, here's one of the commercials.[6]Bongolian (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry nobs, we will be grilling in hell. Anybody got the Ketchup for the hot dogs?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Our missile defense system appears to be working properly. Eyeball to eyeball with the Trumpster, the chickenshit backdown on the nuke (Note to any wannabe superpower: hand in hand with building any offensive capability, you must simultaneous design and build an expensive defensive system to protect it, ya stupid fucks). Who's next on the list? Hmmm, could it be those crazy fucks who think they can take out an American Supercarrier in the Straits of Hormuz....nobs 04:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

shhh, we need to keep the lid on some of this, especially (a) Trump is taking the advice of Barack Obama rather than Steve Bannon, that North Korean missiles are the biggest threat he faces taking office (in fact, now we know why Bannon got shitcanned from the NSC staff: he leaked the name of Susan Rice to Mike Czernovich as being one of the coup plotters) and (b) the Russian missile defense system has a 61% failure rate (36 of 59 got thru in Syria) whereas ours has a 56% failure rate. OMG OMG OMG. The Russians are approaching parity. Time to ramp-up the military industrial complex budget. nobs 17:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I recommend Defilada [7] to anyone who has the opportunity to see it. 86.145.120.178 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"Our own" Brittany Pettibone User:BrittanyPBone as well as Lauren Southern were scheduled to appear[8] at this riot in Berkeley today.[9] The park where the riot was scheduled was once informally known as "Provo Park", after the Dutch Provos.[10]Bongolian (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Your point being? We know that User:BrittanyPBone is a conservative/alt-right figure. There's no point in bringing up her presence at a protest in Berkeley. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No point in particular. Just though it might be of interest to someone. Bongolian (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The riot was a confrontation between the frustrated and the brainwashed - the chief division in American politics today. I just can't sort out which side is which. nobs 06:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Though, we don't know that User:BrittanyPBone is actually Brittany Pettibone. Doxing is prohibited at this site, but suffice it to say, I've yet to see any official Brittany Pettibone channels acknowledge the RW account of the same name. Unless and until that happens... TL;DR: Assume impersonation until proven otherwise. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The way Trump (the Chump) is running things seems to be something to laugh at and something to be scared of. Which should I feel?--That Undead Centrist Schizophrenic (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Scared. This person has destruction at his fingertips and he doesn't seem like a very responsible or competent person. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@RZ94: You frame this question like the two are contradictory. Laugh because you are scared. Know that, even if we are annihilated in nuclear fire, the Trump administration made for excellent snark bait while it lasted.

If, however, you want a more serious answer, I'd agree with LeftyGreenMario. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wait til Gingrich's book about Trump comes out in June. Gingrich says Trump is the first president who was never elected to anything or came from the military. So he's got 50 years life experience different from previous presidents and politicians, and you can't really expect him to act like them. Hopefully in the future there will be more people coming from outside government. So he's sort of a trailblazer as far as expectations go. nobs 07:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

'coming from outside government' haha that's hilarious. Its not like he's a man of the people. He was born into wealth with all the arrogance and entitlement that breeds. He's not trailblazing he's the modern equivalent of aristocracy, a continuation of how the worlds been run for a thousand years. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

He's the quintessential anti-politician. He's broken the monopoly traditional politicians have on the office. He can't be expected to think, behave, and talk like them. I'm sure other non-politician presidents in the future will hold different views, as likewise we will have someday a black president more representative of African-Americans' struggles and ambitions than that low-life piece of shit Obama was. nobs 19:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

hes lying, delusional, and dangerously incompetent. sounds like a traditional politician to me. you really buy into that 'anti-politician' bullshit? thats hilarious. i thought that was just to feed the proles while he fucks them. the only difference between him and the traditional politicians is inability to get any his bills through. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Someday you'll have a Mark Cuban or Oprah Winfrey serving in the office. They'll have the same dedicated cult-like follows, make the same missteps and misstatements, and be faced with the same opposition with gritted teeth accustomed to business-as-usual lying policians and politics. My point is, we should all be rejoicing the professional political class's monopoly on the White House has been broken (of which there is a consensus among voters of both parties and has been for a long time), and tailor our views of support or opposition accordingly. nobs 00:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

While the idea of someone from the outside shattering the iron grip the political elite had on our previous elections sounds comforting, I really don't think it makes up for damage Trump is poised to do. Sounds petty even, like a desperate excuse to avoid feeling nauseated that we have a clown behind our nuclear arsenal and climate policies regardless if this clown is a political elite or not. I'm all for a nice challenge of the elite, but it's got to come from someone that knows what he's doing. It's like proclaiming Marine Le Pen to be symbolic of cracking the glass ceiling even though she has reckless and terrible policies she'd like to impose. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It is increasingly common but has always been around, specifically with female anti-feminists, black social conservatives, and figures like Milo before his self-implosion. Might be helpful to at least compile a list of the people who regularly employ this argument. It's kinda double edged as well, though, as lefty activists also employ it fallaciously. Hentropy (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Might be like an emotional appeal since it relies on the baggage of the mistreatment of minorities as a distraction and an easy to way to defend, and it doesn't actually evaluate the merit of the argument. It assumes that just because a person is a minority it automatically means the person cannot spout arguments demeaning to the minority groups the person represents (like a woman can't be anti-feminist). That's obviously fallacious, and the thing is, a donkey-cavity is a donkey-cavity no matter if the arguments demean the donkey-cavity's personal characteristics. If we don't have a page like this, wouldn't hurt to create one. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, add it. A fallacy article seems apt as a non-political space in which to question the basic legitimacy of talking down to individual human beings as if they were somehow reducible to (or "responsible for") their gender, or sex, or ethnicity, or disability... etc. I mean, I can't be the only one here who finds it highly disconcerting to see how mainstream "calling people" on their skin color has become in certain circles. Actively fanning the flames of the toxic ingroup/outgroup bias innate to the apaloid human brain is most unwise. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This seems like suitable content for a page, but what should we call it? Samstr (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

"Appeal to identity" is a good candidate. Anything else? "I'm X so if I opposing rights for X, I'm right" or "I'm X so I should be forgiven for opposing rights for X". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's hope they don't leave it out of the debt ceiling increase- if we all live long enough. Wait a minute, isn't NASA in bed with the Russians on the ISS? Now I'm really confused... nobs 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Title says it all. Instead of spamming the website with multiple individual threads about these comments i propose that this single thread is the place for all crazy comments on the internet along with videos till 5/20/17 where a new one will be made.

I'll start with this

"Is it FACTS that make you an evil negative animal or is it the steroids you take in your uploads? ;) #Winning #YouEvenSquatBro?﻿"

Start with signing your posts, please. ^^ On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What would it do that WIGO clogs doesn't? Bicyclewheel 11:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Rbaja is a new user, (s)he probably doesn't know about the clogs or any of that stuff. Christopher (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I figured out how to use the MediaWiki API, which made grabbing all the edits 100x easier. It also made it possible to graph the actual characters added over time -- which might be a more useful barometer of activity than edits themselves. Graphs available at:

Across three studies, the desire to see oneself as unique was weakly but reliably associated with the general mindset behind conspirational thinking, conspiracy mentality, as well as the endorsement of specific conspiracy beliefs. These results thus point to a hitherto neglected function of conspiracy theories: to present oneself as distinct from the crowd. Previous explanations of conspiracy thinking had pointed to feelings of control deprivation and less analytical thinking as potential predictors of conspiracy beliefs and thereby created a stereotype of the typical conspiracy believer as a rather anxious and non-rational individual. The current findings add to this emerging image by pointing to a highly functional aspect of endorsing largely unpopular conspiracy beliefs. All humans share not only the need to belong and affiliate with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), but also to be different and stick out from them, to be an identifiably unique individual (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). In navigating both these goals, individuals engage in social identification processes with groups that serve both needs to a comparable degree (Brewer, 1991) and make consumer choices that can either signify belonging to a certain group of consumers or signify differentness. The same logic is also applicable to attitudes; Agreeing with overly consensual opinions is aversive for people with a heightened need for uniqueness (Imhoff & Erb, 2009) and they may thus turn to less common opinions. Conspiracy theories seem to hold the promise of being a set of political attitudes that guarantees that one will be seen as having an independent, if not necessarily accurate, mind.

Wow. America has become a nation of Californians - 300 million eccentrics. Between the anti-globalists and Russia-Trumpers, beating each other up in the streets, looking for a sense of community. nobs 19:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

So, the alt-righters (and other extremists) are basically political hipsters then. Having some experience with alt-righters, I always thought this in a way, and I'm glad studies came to this conclusion. I recall JonTron being against identity politics, so there's that.—♥(((CheeseburgerFace)))♥ (talk • stalk) 00:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the truth is the date of his birth is unknown. It's known that he was baptized on 26 April 1564, so he was probably born soon before then. And yes it is known that he died on 23 April 1616. Anyway, like all good Stratfordians (and Stratfordodians) I always celebrate Shakespeare's birthday on 23 April. Spud (talk)

Have you ever had something made of recycled paper and wondered where it came from? Have you ever considered that new certificate or license may have at one point been a political flyer for Donald Trump, a church bulleton from a right wing church, a Jehovah's Witness flyer, a school assignment from Bob Jones University, or an advertisement for some kind of homeopathic quackery? 172.58.11.195 (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

So, basically the old "did you consider that the water you're drinking was once dinosaur pee" idea but with paper? Incidentally, no, I didn't. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(St George and the Dragon were running a 'leave your local village without relatives hauling you back' set up but then George fell in love with one of the intending leavers.) 31.51.114.96 (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not everyone lives in the same time zone as you, 31.51.114.96. The Holydaze template appears on the recent changes page 12 hours before the special day starts in UTC and stays there until 12 hours after the day's finished in UTC. That's why, for a few hours yesterday the Earth Day and St. George's Day templates were both up at the same time (it was 23 April in some time zones but still 22 April in others). For the same reason, you'll see the Christmas day and Boxing Day templates appear together for a few hours. Spud (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright so i am browsing the internet looking at videos related to simone biles.
I made the mistake of venturing into the jungle that is know as the youtube comment sections where i find a flame war.
so here's this alt-right winger named im awesome with a pepsi as his avatar and he says

"youtube or google "Black invention myths debunked". The peanut butter one was done by a white man some 10 years prior to the black guy. Lights are definitely not a black invention.﻿"

I always saw it as a crime what we did to George Washington Carver- he had a very important impact in the post-civil war black population. I never learned about how he helped a bunch of people fight hunger and grow their communities, instead we just learned the covertly racist lesson "the best thing a black person ever invented was peanut butter" and that's not even freaking true. Hentropy (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

seems like a positive that he didnt invent peanut butter. that stuff is vile. just the smell of it turns my stomach. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Big Brother (TV show) with Trump, Putin and Kim among the contestants (who else could be included?) would be 'interesting.' 31.51.113.89 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw this argument today somewhere for women's rights. While I have zero issues with advocating for women's rights, telling a person to support women's rights so they can be on the "right side of history" is just a bad argument. Better arguments can be made; like don't be a fucking asshole for example. The aforementioned argument speculative of what future views in a society will be and what the current issue will be seen as in the future. Is this topic worthy of an article?—♥(((CheeseburgerFace)))♥ (talk • stalk) 03:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we could extend it to overall idea of a myth of progress, a very common ideology is some form or another that says civilization is always 'going forward' and can never 'go backwards.' Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A bad argument to rationalists and wonks who want debate the substantive issues all night long, for sure. I wouldn't suggest arguing like that on the internet. But it can be an effective argument for some audiences- the people who opposed women's rights and civil rights in the 60s look like villains today, and no one wants to be that person. One of the mistakes a lot of activists make is not effectively "reading the room" and trying to tailor different arguments to different audiences. The history argument should never under any circumstances be the only argument made, though. Hentropy (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The "reading the room to adjust the argument" is spot on, and incidentally Katharine Hayhoe mentioned that in her New Yorker radio interview:[12] start by getting people to agree with you, after that you can add challenging ideas. Bongolian (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe her, May, and Putin can form the New Entente and Merkel can put on one of those pointy helmets, contemplating what to do when Hungary invades Serbia for no reason. WWI doesn't get enough attention, is my point. Hentropy (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I think its about time the US is in at the start of a world war instead of joining in at half time. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Same problem with Pascal's wager It doesn't matter the cause if your justification is bullshit. But if I wanted to tear feminism down I'd have a harder time because God is hard to prove and seems to have no real effect. At least feminism stands for something that could work. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Feminism is like Islam; (a) nobody knows what it is, and (b) you got moderate believers and hardcore assholes. nobs 07:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a great job. But Feminism is not like Islam, because one is a radical response to societal injustice and the other justifies itself with a magic wizard. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Islam was founded as a response to social injustice (Jahiliyyah. Infanticide, for example, was rampant. Islam was meant to civilize the ignorant who practiced social injustice, same as it does today). What, you think this generation is something special? that the human race had to wait twenty centuries after Christ to invent or discover social injustice? nobs 08:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess not, but you're hardly defending anything. Yes, social justice is a consistently current thing, co-opted by groups. That doesn't make it wrong, especially shows it ain't right, and it categorically cannot make current social morality movements a religion, except they should be and they should respect each other because people. Wait, I meant to say is nobs a liberal? Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

At somepoint in recent years - I don't know when it was (probably before Obama, maybe) we crossed the Rubicon. Old notions, still taught in text books and widely held as liberal and conservative have fallen away. And what's emerging bares scant resemblance to either. Yes, there are deep down basic precepts in each, but they are easily forgotten or compromised in a world that's changing too fast for people to keep up with.

Take User:Conservative, for instance. He's stuck on a 1970s sermon by Jerry Falwell that secularization is the big enemy, hence 'desecularization' means Christian revival. The hell it does. Preaching the gospel means Christian revival, which he conveniently ignores, while he races down the road to praying to Mecca five times a day and worshipping a rock. And it's not like the bible he touts dorsn't warn him of this.

Or look at the anti-nationalists who accuse Trump of Treason. Only a person who believes in national borders would call somebody else a traitor. Hypocricy? No. This is the only criticism leveled at Trump with chance to stick. And they are committed and really believe it.

We're going thru a mass confusion stage, but what emerges at the other end won't bare any resemblance to the things we've known. nobs 10:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to every other point in the history of anything. I think that was your point?

My points are somehow now 1) Feminism bares no resemblance to Islam, 2) Trump is a national disgrace who is breaking the law and ignoring the terms and conditions of holding the highest executive office in the US, both implied and explicit (tax returns to running international business).

It's not an age of confusion about the facts, because we have them. And we can verify them even if some people choose not to. If it's an age of confusion, it's because we're confused what to do with people like Trump. I like you but how far off the rails are we and to what end? Gaul Dernitt (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Feminism is a cult phase that can't possibly survive two decades of Islamic dominance.

There is no compulsion to share one's tax information. That violates all the sacred privacy rights Americans hold dear. nobs 19:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobs, your first point was feminism is similar to Islam, then you went on saying that apparently social justice was not a thing of this generation. But somehow recently they succeeded more. The point is that Islam was meant to address a supposed injustice tracing back to Abraham and a disowned son, feminism about concrete inequality. I also have qualms about the extremist sjw degeneration, of course, because of their rigidity and the embarrassing strawman they serve to reactionaries. I'm curious about your other point, about what's coming on, as you say it bears little resemblance to liberal and conservative cathegories. I'd say though there is a quite strong reactionary component though, somehow revalued, because they think the Islam radicalization is an effect of the liberal society, but Islam is also feared because of being a sexist, non secularized political religion, which also Christianity used to be. Islam immigrants though used to be more light in their faith and more secularized. Imho the sjw degeneration is an effect of the path chosen by the political left, when it has been coopted by the establishment, which always was at its vertices to an extend. Such degeneration has watered down the economical and exploitative aspect of society, focusing on welfare and the (rightly due, though) civil rights. They also romanticized the immigration, doing little to address the exploitative component of using the to devalue the workforce. Because yes melting pot is a nice concept but not without a project, a sense of unity for a resistance against exploitation. Then the geopolitical aspects of aggression, war, destablization of middle east, further fed the anti western sentiment.--78.15.232.220 ([User talk:78.15.232.220|talk]]) 16:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Look at Macron, for example, from "a fringe left" party in France, where the center supposedly has collapsed. He's running on cutting the corporate tax rate and reducing public sector jobs. That sounds like Trump or Reagan that French socialists are voting for. Then in the US, you have extreme Tea Partiers voting to protect Obamacare and rejecting Trumpism.

Politically speaking, these are not a reversal of roles, these are new crossover coalitions being formed. But underneath it all, there are ideological shifts, 'cause frankly, nobody believes or adheres to the old ideologies anymore. The brlief systems have either been discredited or proven ineffective.

I spent much of today listening to a Jewish lawyer defending the Daily Stormer on free speech grounds in a lawsuit brought by the SPLC. To sum it up, Daily Stormer did exactly what others groups have done to Milo Yankovich, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Bill O'Reiily and a host of others.

As these ideological shifts are crystallizing (which can happen overnight or over decades), some people may want to define themselves by their percieved enemies. IMO, this not only is a weak basis for a new ideology, it can overlook the fact everyone's belief system is in flux. These are the people and groups most prone to violence out of anger cause their world is turned upside down.

So how do you soothe the anxieties of people who feel left behind economically or as the result of an election? By stoking their fears and prejudices? nobs 00:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't. Or rather, nobody does. Or we elect a demagogue. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Macron fringe left? He is considered a "center" independent, secular and liberal, he has some area of public spending if I got it right. Melenchon is considered like this, probably being just social democrat :). For your examples I think about confusion and disorientation, but it's true. As the traditional parties "betray". The recurring appeal to free speech is some times paradoxical, from people not granting the right to exist of some people ^_^. Especially if it comes in the form of complaint, I mean, I suppose people can advocate killing blacks, etc. but it's not paradoxical, they would grant them free speech when they are killing them. It's an example. Yeah, also Yiannopoulos advocating the worst homophobes against the threat of Islam, I suppose. But I call it confusion if one person criticizes, rightly, Islam for being regressive and reactionary, holding to old prescriptive gender roles and the votes regressive and reactionaries, because liberalism is somehow at fault. But same goes I learned, for the left, I'm Italian and the same people, who, like me, adversed Berlusconi and his power abuses, cutting the art.18 of workers statute (on firing without just cause), demonstration all around. The Renzi came, nominally "left", he approved the Jobs act, no nig national demonstration or strikes. So I guess most of them were just "faction driven".--78.15.232.220 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thankn you for your outside insight (that's a little oxymoronic phrase that I thought I'd lodge in place of an emojii) It's always a tough sell when tasked with a counterargument. Even tougher when your practical representatives live on couunterarguments. Yiannopolous had to make enemies. That was his character's point. He was also sad scum, never gave a thought to the counterargument itself, but faction drive deserves consideration because of its potential power. Because factions sometimes want a shift more than they want centrism, but rarely have comprehensive plans. Still, I think we should progress, and I can't blame progressive Trump voters for voting, but I can blame them for not using Google to even it's least extent. Being said, I'm right there with everybody on the wrong side, because history means all of us, so if anybody has any bright ideas...Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A problem today is too many groups like Antifa, the Salafis, and few right-wing groups hold as a basic premise that unless you think like me or agree with me, you must be an infidel fascist commie worthy of death. This sort of thinking is the cornerstone of totalitarianism. nobs 02:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah. But I thought you were the totalianist? Is that a word, why isn't anybody fighting my fights for me? Jokes aside, the left is almost as dumb as the right anymore, sure, but Gamergate died because it made no sense. The point that anybody cared about a video game developer's fidelity and then gaming 'journalism' accounting for more than pointless hype, the people who criticize that live outside of it, man. You mean to say Nintendo Power was honest, and I'm responsible for disliking any game that got a good review? Gamergate was defeated because it was an overreaction to nothing. Antifa is fun for angry kids. I'd have done it. Salafis, okay, I'm lost on that. I'll try and figure it out, but that's because of you, nobs, not the argument itself.

Never considered it, don't even know what you mean, really. But the problem of groupthink won't get solved very quickly, it will only get solved thoroughly. Which is an oxymoronic plan. Crap. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

First, I want to thank everyone who participated. When I started it a month ago, I had no idea that people would actually want to participate. It's nice to see that so many had the St. Patrick's Day Spirit, even in April.

Second, time to announce the winner(s). In first place, with twenty-two votes, is our great and powerful protector, the Goat! Give it up for the Goat, everyone! Quickly, before He turns His wrath upon the site!

In second place, with sixteen votes, is everyone. Yes, if you participated at all, you won second place! Because it turns out, having fun is all that matters! Well, that and not pissing off the Goat...or Trent...

So does that mean RBP is locked out of 2nd place? What about the honorable mentions? Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 07:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, in terms of set theory, I'm already included in "everyone who participated". I also think nobs deserves a little credit for his Bannon limerick. Regardless, props to everyone who gave limerick writing a go! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It had a good outcome. Everyone who had an idea spent breath, who would honestly be against that? Murmers and mumblings aside, I had a great time with the content. What fun Gaul Dernitt (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't get first place? This contest is rigged!-Donald Trump 06:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a somewhat naive question maybe some of our UK users can give pointers on. American press and media often use the the terms, 'British govetnment' and 'British intelligence' which to me seems archaic and outdated dating back to WWII. Most 'British' publications seem to use UK instead. Is this observation on track? If so, how does one go about rehabiliting 300 hundred million Americans and its mainstream press to the correct usage and term?

It seems using 'British' for everything relat3d to the UK, is a term tied up with ethnic identity and similiar to the old misnomer of 'Indian' for Native American (which itself is a term frought with legal ambiguities. Barack Obama, for example, is a native American). Anywho, any pointers or suggestions would be appreciated. nobs 17:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I ain't no redcoat but it's my understanding (someone can still correct me) that using "British" is fine, it refers to the island and only leaves out Northern Ireland. If you're doing a news report it's most correct to use UK but I've heard British use the term British all the time- even on Brexit which was still called Brexit despite including NI and Gibraltar. So long as you're not using "English" too much. Keep in mind that if you're in the UK and talking about UK politics, you're probably just going to say "the government" or "the upcoming elections" just as people in the US are not that specific. Hentropy (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Us set here. As I understand it they don't mind foreigners using "British" since they have yet to find a more elegant way to say "UK-ish." 71.188.73.196 (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty much the way 'American' or 'Yankee' became the default descriptions of people from the USA, because United Statesian doesn't flow so well. My understanding is that "Britain" is the large island where England, Wales, and Scotland all are, but that "British Isles" includes Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Woman, and Isle of Dog, as well as all the wee ones up around Scotland. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This explains what each term officially refers to. Christopher (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

British is fine, UK is fine. Its no different to referring to the US as America. We all know what is meant. I refer to myself as British not UKer, the same way the op refers to themselves as american and not USian. I assume they are not Canadian or Brazilian. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@christopher, your diagram is incorrect. It is not the united kingdom, it is the united kingdom of great Britain and northern Ireland. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Isle of Man (famous for three-legged logo and tail-less cats), Berwick upon Tweed - supposedly persisted in the Crimean War until some 'municipal jolly settling the matter' in the 1960s, Rockall - occasionally visited, Gruinard Island (better known by another name), and 'subjects of the Duke of Normandy' (including the Minquiers and occasionally invaded Ecrehous Islands). 86.146.100.38 (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to the conclusion. Trump, Le Pen, Putin (and Hillary, too} is symptomatic of the problem, not the cause. But what comes next is something to worry about. What's equally or more worrying, is young people, whose world this is seem unconcerned about it.

I'm not a big fan of Stephen Molyneux, but today he spoke along the same lines after the Paris attacks, and I shocked myself at being rivetted to every word. Two of these alarm bells the same day, one before one after Paris, is too more than coinicidence. nobs

The only thing that is being "squandered" is the rather recent achievements of 20th century western liberals. For most of those thousands of years of European history, your average person (along with many noble people) lived short, brutish lives under cruel autocracies. In the US, our liberty was bought with the blood of our own mixed with the blood of these very same autocrats. But we were only marginally better, enslaving an entire other race for economic gain. Trying to look to the past to find liberalism and enlightenment is like looking to a wolf den for philosophy.

Economic strife mixed with civil strife is putting a strain on democracy, due to democracy's natural inability to respond to these kind of crises quickly and decisively. So just as in the 1930s, we are given a choice- so we want to be perfectly safe and economically secure, or do we want to be free? We were told the same thing by illiberals back then. "Give power to [Insert Fascist Here] and you won't have to choose, they will ensure your freedom while taking care of the 'problem'." It is a cruel deception, and one that ignores the very essence of classical liberalism, because if only some privileged classes have freedom, no one really does. If we give them the avenue to revoke freedom, it will always be revoked. Europe realized this cruel deception too late last time.

And we're quickly seeing this same issue play out now, aren't we? Luckily we have a fair number of controls in the US to keep Trump's tyrannical ambitions in check, for now. But him complaining about the judges and an entire branch of government is quite telling. He doesn't understand what a President is for, because he doesn't remember under one that was truly great and was restrained by the actual duties of the office (really, we haven't had a true President since Andrew cocklord Jackson). Le Pen is talking about stripping citizenship away from people who born in the country. So much for liberty and fraternity, eh? Sure, you may be free now, until we decide that certain people born in the country are no longer citizens. Scroll down to the comments of that Molyneux video and you get a heavy dose of where this train of thought naturally leads to- not being protected "bloodlessly and without suffering", but ultimately to people openly clamoring for autocracy and genocide because of scary brown people. This is what you REALLY get with Le Pen, Trump, et al, not some kind of bloodless rebuilding of "civilization" and peace, security, and freedom all at the same time. You may get peace and security, but only at the very high cost of your personal liberties.

What is truly disturbing to me is that people seem blind to the obvious machinations of it all. There's no reason to construct some elaborate theory about what happened here. A radical Muslim shot a police officer in the most famous part of Paris three days for an election. Is that because they loved Macron or Fillon? Maybe they want people to vote for Melenchon! No, obviously they are doing it to try and get people to vote for Le Pen, because that's exactly what they want. They want more war, more conflict, and to force the Muslims who were born and Europe to make a choice between them on Little Miss Petain. Just as "striking back" for "justice" against the terrorists after 9/11 did not change anything or make anyone more safe. As for the younger people, I guess I may fall in that category... I grew up with 9/11 burned into my psyche. I only have vague memories of a time before we started fighting terrorists, using the same tactics against the same enemies with the same results. The executives under Bush and Obama trying to consolidate more power and overstep in order to keep us "safe". Trump and Le Pen and whatever nouveau-fasciste coming down the pipeline will not reverse this trend, they will not keep me safe because the last 3 Presidents I remember were unable to keep me fully safe from harm. Because it turns out the government can't actually really do that. Is it necessary to live in a democracy? I'll let you know when I actually live in one.

That turned into an essay but it's good to get it out sometimes. Hentropy (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well thought out response, but I have to differ on some points regarding the 1930s. No, the defeat of fascism in Europe, which France was incapable of, did not make people free. Yes, America'a war effort was billed as such, but it failed in its objectives. 350 million people found themselves enslaved after 1945 - that's what a half century Cold War was all about. So I don't see where the parallels hold up other than a rallying call to oppose Trump - albeit on flawed premises.

My arguement is the situation would not be much different with Hillary Clinton right now. Probably worse - because we'd have to endure another 8 years of an ignorant lovefest between media, Hollywood, and the White House while the whole the world and everything we treasure burns - which isn't the prime cause of our problems, but certainly made things more difficult.

Hiding from problems doesn't fix them - Reagan was accused of that. I'm grateful people are being forced to confront reality, it's an imperfect world, and there are real dangerous threats in it. And Donald Trump is not the cause of these problems. Trump, populism, nativism - love it or hate any of them - forces people to get out of their "unaware and compliant" mode and get engaged. Information and education are key. And barking after Trump serves no purpose whatsoever to confront these real problems that Trump has taken off the back burner. nobs 19:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I would actually agree on pretty much all of these points. I would never suggest that simply winning WWII made everyone free. It was mostly just the prosperity gained in the US that led to a steady expansion of liberalism, and then us using that as a geopolitical strategy to oppose to Soviets. I would also agree that things wouldn't be much different under Hillary... in fact they could be worse. It's become clear to me that the only way people will sour on this form of populism or nationalism is if they jump headfirst into it, or if they're lucky, see another country dive headfirst into and see how it goes. Delaying it longer with another relic like Hillary was only going to make people more hungry.

And I don't even think Trump is that bad, I don't think he's stupid but I think it's clear he has no clear or coherent political ideology. It's rather easy to abandon principles you never really had in the first place. No deep state brainwashing or blackmailing needed. Le Pen and AfD and all these other opportunists in Europe are more troubling, these are not incoherent populists with no principles or ideologies, they are actively looking to erode the foundations of peace and cooperation in Europe that has prevented them from slipping back into their neverending, bloody pissing contests all because the last 10 years or so has kinda been shit for the economy and politics. Hentropy (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget Putin, tho. Even relations between Merkel & Putin (Iran, too) are not as strained as the US IC & Putin. The EU is a creation of US hegemony. We may be looking at an Right-wing Euro-slavic alliance, less all the racism it's been known for in the past, making Russia an equal partner, rather than a dominant bogeyman that was feared under the Soviet system. nobs 07:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Economic powerhouses matter. Moreso than military powers, or so India would think. So the problem has always been Globalism and the fallout of imperialism, but imperial military is not as valuable as it used to be. Hence the US, Russia, North Korea panic. North Korea shouldn't even be in the game. Hell, at this point I gotta give ISIS some credit, throwing bodies at the problem objectively doesn't work anymore, but I guess they are willing to play it to the hilt? Not a morality assessment here. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this has crossed anyone's mind...i like fish...I mean, I was just presented with the 12 second attention span argument and I did some brief googling but the whole thing seems crazy subjective. Anyone else like fish? Err...I mean, anyone given this one any thought? Gadzooks (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A recent non-peer-reviewed study by Microsoft compared the attention span of a human and a goldfish, and found the two were disturbingly close. In fact, the goldfish beat us by half a second. The human span was down about four seconds from 2000, which some have said is due to technology inundating our eyes, ears, and brains. The Microsoft “study” claimed that the human attention span went from 12 seconds on average in 2000 to just 8.25 seconds in 2015. Those figures were compared to an average goldfish attention span of 9 seconds. The problem is, no definition of attention span is given, and it’s not at all clear how these numbers were developed.

Another problem is that when studies do provide a definition of attention, a different physiological dynamic arises. Attention (and its close relative, consciousness) is one of the most studied attributes of the brain today. Thousands of psychological, neurobiological and social science studies have been conducted on how we “pay attention.” And one remarkable pattern shows that most of the time, we don’t. And that’s a good thing.

Attention is actually the result of a series of reactions in the brain to sensory stimuli. First, a stimulus (say, an object picked up by the eyes) makes its way to the posterior parietal cortex of the brain, which seems to be the center of managing stimuli and attention. The brain has to disengage from whatever it’s focusing on now, move to look at the new stimuli, engage that new stimuli and raise a sense of alertness to that new stimuli.

It’s important to note that behind all this focusing of attention is another response, that of deliberately ignoring other stimuli. That’s important, because our eyes and brains (to say the least for nose, ears and skin) are receiving thousands of stimuli at any given moment. In people with severe ADHD, one can see the results form an inability to focus.

This selective attention enhances neuron firing in the frontal cortex and the superior colliculus. The temporal cortex also starts firing more neurons. And these neuronal networks are highly adaptable, as they learn to move from one type of stimulus to another.

These adaptations have been evolutionarily valuable, and they are valuable now. Whether it picks out a true threat from mere objects in one’s way, or a single Tweet from a news feed storm—the brain has been able to handle just about anything that’s thrown at it.

See my source here. I don't think our attention spans shortening is necessarily a bad thing, nor do I think that we really need an article on it (it isn't exactly missional). However, if you or others think it's a good idea, write away my friend. Meh (You) 23:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like Nazi science. Dehumanizes us comparing us to fish bait. nobs 04:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it 'attention span' or 'how long it takes us to decide something is neither a threat nor interesting enough to pursue' (so part of a more complex process)? 86.146.100.79 (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobs, I don't think it's dehumanising to compare our attention spans to that of a goldfish. I make no claims, the article makes no claims, and the researchers make no claims that we are less human because we have a half-second less of an attention span than a goldfish. To claim that it is dehumanising is, at best, a claim that has little to no basis in reality. #Can'tComeUpWithACleverSignature 01:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

C'mon now. You ever see a goldfish build the Eifel Tower? or the International Space Station? or a cure for polio? nobs 08:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobs that's a nonsense answer haha. No one's making the claim that goldfish could build the Eiffel Tower, the ISS, or create a polio vaccine. Furthermore, the only thing that was compared was the attention spans of goldfish and mankind, not their respective capacities for rational thought, their abilities to do science, or even their capacity for thought in general. To compare goldfish and humanity in terms of achievement is to compare a fishbowl to the world. #Can'tComeUpWithACleverSignature 13:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, we left out the Templars and Freemasons! Silly us! Yes, the Aztecs, Maya, Templars, Masons, and the (truly insidious) RW admins will sacrifice the unsuspecting sheeple sheep to the Great Goat! As a side note, the best way to make people American is to destroy every state that isn't New England or the Pacific coast. That way, only the good parts of America are left! RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we get an article written about this woo-laden 'website'? I've been reading right, and I came across an article there called 'REVEALED: This Large Hadron Collider discovery could REWRITE the laws of physics'. Like. Seriously? They didn't find that. The article doesn't even mention what the title does. All the scientists found (I'm making my inner physics lover cringe by saying all they found was..) was that they could create quark-gluon plasma by colliding protons. Hardly the 'REWRITE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!!?!?!11?!?!!!1?!1' title that I was expecting. After that, we see articles for the LHC proving ghosts exist and 'super orgasms[sic]' for women. See what I see now? We desperately need an article ripping that publication apart. Meh (You) 18:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Anybody come across these guys before? From their 'About' section: "Issuepedia is the encyclopedia of issues, analysis, thought, and opinion. As with Wikipedia, anyone can edit; unlike Wikipedia, we encourage opinions and rants as well as carefully considered analysis and purely factual writing." Seems to be active; is it on-mission for us? 197.89.55.35 (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It isn't active at all: there's only one active editor. Does it deserve an article? Ehh, it's not super missional so I would vote no. #Can'tComeUpWithACleverSignature 15:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Not active, but has linked from RationalWiki in the Ferguson effect article. Wheeee! I still wouldn't link it though, not unless it's more active than this. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't link it since it isn't very active.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Suppose there are some white nationalists discussing politics and one of them says, "That sounds just like something Hitler would say!" and the other says, "Yeah, you're right! So I guess that means I'm on the right track, huh?"

Or suppose they're chatting about Donald Trump's proposed Muslim ban, and one of them says, "It sounds like something Hitler would propose!" and the other says, "Yeah, I guess we should vote for Trump again in 2020, huh?"

it isnt godwins if the hitler comparison is justified. im not convinced its entirely justified with trump. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@MRE, I suppose? Who cares what some random neo Nazi might've once said though? Christopher (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay, I always thought Godwin's law only referred to the likelihood of a comparison to Hitler not whether it was valid or not. Christopher (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Godwin's law applies because it involves the bringing up of Hitler. Also, comparing Hitler to X is a terrible argument because the comparison is most likely made for the shock value. I say just analyze the person at face value and analyze what exactly is wrong with X instead of doing a shallow comparison.—♥(((CheeseburgerFace)))♥ (talk • stalk) 20:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Argumentum ad Hitlerum is almost never valid, I still don't think Godwin's law itself (As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.) Makes any claims as to the validity of a Hitler comparison. Christopher (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

its entirely pointless if the the comparison is valid. Such memes are pointless anyway, but that make it more so. i dont shout 'godwins' at the telly when world at war is on. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "Godwin's Law" is NOT a value judgement on the validity of Nazi comparisons. Sometimes bringing up Nazis is perfectly relevant. The law, like the "law of gravity" simply describes the inevitability that many political discussions (though even the original coiner was just talking about Heinlein discussions) will eventually careen towards bringing up Nazis, for valid or (often) unvalid reasons. Pointing out Godwin's Law whenever someone brings up Nazis is like pointing out gravity whenever you drop your pen. In this sense, it cannot be "invoked" positively or negatively, it just is. Hentropy (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there a version of it that says, "The first person to bring up Hitler loses the argument"? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The whole Antifa movement is based on Godwin's law. It started in California with some masked "antifascists" macing a Trump rally organizer, all predicated on the notion Trump=Hitler and Trumpsters=fascists, coupled with the idea "I'm gonna hit 'em first before they start killing people." Then the Trumpsters get organised ready to respond to violence, and soon the streets of Berkley look like the streets of Berlin in 1919 or Munich in 1923.

Who's right and who's wrong? It doesn't matter when you're dead (especially if you're an atheist). As my father used to say, "If you go looking for a fight, don't be surprised if you find one." nobs 23:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That's how people chose to interpret it over time. Godwin's Law became a way for people to point out how often people jump to Nazis in the most irrelevant contexts, so people started to "invoke" it as a way to encourage people not to talk about Nazis when talking about stuff that has nothing to do with them. But in reality the Nazis (and some might say Stalin's USSR) were examples of the worst regimes in the modern history, the epitome of what not to do, which is actually quite useful when talking about politics. Cautionary tales and showing "what not to do" are very useful things whether you're talking about politics, life, chess, etc. Hentropy (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It needs to be used carefully and well sourced (I would suggest not using it at all to make comparisons). A young person, who never heard of Hitler & the Nazi's, could come away believing "well, Hitler must not have been that bad" once the fallacious basis of the argument is exposed. "What else did they say about Hitler and Donald Trump that was not true?" That's the impression young minds can pick up. nobs 23:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a good point actually, talking about issues like Nazism, slavery, colonialism, etc. in only the most simplest terms often gives people a false impression, and when they get older and find out that Hitler wasn't some cartoon character, they lose trust. Talking more broadly about the politics of dehumanization and how it has played a role in history, both far back to the present, is more important to properly connect the lesson. Hentropy (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Godwin's law has obvious applications: if you make a serious argument centering around the word "feminazi" or seriously have disdain for a discussion of grammar calling people "Grammar Nazis", you've probably fallen into the easy trap of viewing people who are just slightly meaner than you like as Nazis. People advocating for an authoritarian ethnostate are the one exception. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 14:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I might as well post here, because if you post any kind of criticism of Wikipedia, on Wikipedia, they'll say, "Oh, what's this criticism based off of? What kind of petty dispute, in which you were probably the one in the wrong, are you passively-aggressively trying to make a point about? If you don't like how we run things on Wikipedia, the door's that way," etc., etc. You pretty much have to post outside of Wikipedia, to have any kind of reasonable discussion about it, because the regulars tend to want to circle the wagons and present a united front against any critic in their midst.

As the New Agers would say, they can't get outside of their egos. They'll greet any criticism with, "Oh, so you think you can come here and give us some brilliant insight we never thought of before? You got a lot to learn, buddy. Please read these 500 pages of policies, guidelines, and essays, so you can better understand the wisdom that we've developed since 2001, making minor tweaks once in awhile, to the point where now it's so close to perfection that it's inconceivable that any major overhaul would ever be warranted."

Any successful organization, whose founding represented a revolutionary step forward, will tend to view its policies as holy Scripture, and its culture as the best that could possibly exist. Look at America. They say, "Our Constitution is already perfect; don't fuck with it!" and "We have this great culture of guns, baseball, and apple pie that is very wholesome, nurturing, and good. If you don't like our culture, then leave."

Or it's like if you approach a creationist with some of Dawkins' arguments. They'll say, "Read The Evolution Handbook and then we'll discuss further. You'll find that a lot of your arguments have already been addressed. What, you think you're the first person to point out the genetic similarities between humans and apes? The creationist community consists of serious scholars who have studied the evidence and devoted their lives to developing a comprehensive body of work refuting all counterclaims. This is a religion that has stood the test of time and been embraced by very intelligent people around the world. You have a lot to learn."

One thing I think is a flaw in Wikipedia culture is their constant use of appeals to motive. It's even implicit in the "assume good faith" guideline that you should be thinking about other users' motives. It says, "Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs along with the deformed, resultant edit." Why not just say, "Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith," period?

It's not always necessary in life to judge what people's motives are. In criminal court, the intent is what matters; even if you do no harm, you can be sent to jail for making an attempt, while on the other hand, if you do harm, you can escape punishment by showing your behavior was inadvertent and not negligent. In civil court, intent doesn't matter at all; if you caused harm, then you pay damages, but if you didn't cause harm, then you don't pay damages, even if your intent was bad. Whenever possible, it's good to get away from principles inspired by the highly politicized criminal justice system, and instead use principles inspired by the common law.

It very often happens on Wikipedia that someone will write an article that isn't up to standards, and they'll start attacking the contributor's motives. "You're a spammer," "You're trying to disparage the subject of the article," "You're trying to shoehorn in stuff that will further your agenda," etc. Usually the editor will respond, "No, that's not what I'm trying to do; that's not what my motive is," when really, maybe he should be saying, "Neither of us can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what my motives are or aren't, but they're irrelevant anyway; let's just discuss what the rules have to say about this kind of content."

The accuser will often try to put himself in a superior position to comment on the matter by saying, "I'm not affiliated with the article's subject, although who knows about YOU. I'm only commenting because I want to keep the encyclopedia neutral. I have a long standing in this community, which I could not have achieved if I were biased; what about YOU?"

That's like if a senior executive at Fox News were to say to an intern, "I've worked for 20 years at this company, which provides fair and balanced coverage. I could not have achieved that without actually being fair and balanced. What about YOU, newcomer? If you're going to criticize me, it means that either you have some underhanded agenda of wanting to introduce bias into the news, or you have a lot to learn."

We're at a point now where the paid editors feel they have to operate in the shadows, and where anyone with credentials feels like they have to hide those credentials, lest people accuse them of having a conflict of interest. Paid editors these days usually hire a bunch of meatpuppets in order the help them fly under the radar. Everyone prefers it this way, because it would be bad for Wikipedia's reputation to admit that a lot of articles are written by paid editors, yet those editors are responsible for quite a lot of content, so they're a necessary evil, given the declining rates of volunteer edits, and the fact that volunteers often have their own undisclosed axes to grind.

There are a lot of users with "bad" intent who nonetheless add good content, and a lot of users with "good" intent who nonetheless add bad content, so intent is kinda irrelevant. It just becomes relevant because people will shriek, "You let this person, who admits their bias, edit articles pertaining to the area that they're biased in? How is that compatible with neutrality?" So instead we have people who don't admit their bias, but still have a bias, edit those articles under the cloak of anonymity.

Yet I can't say any of this on Wikipedia, because they'll say, "Oh, you must be one of these biased users who's trying to corrupt our encyclopedia, or you wouldn't be saying this" which is yet another appeal to motive. They just can never stop with the appeals to motive, even in meta-conversations about appeals to motive. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Your username is the perfect punchline there - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

When did I/P start? I'm planning on adding a chronicle of it on the timeline page. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That's an old timer thing? It seems like it started after I got here. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 15:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

By my standards, yes. I got here in November, and IIRC, it was only dying out when I got here. And even now, people try to preemptively stop its revival. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say "mona's regdate"(August '15), not because Mona is the only "combatant" who was obstinate and obtuse, but because they managed to take the opposite position of the other obstinate and obtuse people involved who were already here. The irony of it quickly breaking down into a "No, they started it" endless chicken coop was probably not lost on most other editors. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 15:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ikanreed's right. The I/P crap started back in August. I don't know when it actually started precisely, but I do distinctly recall it having started after Mona's August 15 registration. I think it started with a source of her's called Electronic Intifada or something along those lines. Maybe that's how it started. Ɀexcoiler KingboltNoooooooo!There's a roach on my Wall! 21:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I never once took part in the I/P shitstorm on any side, nor would I qualify as an "old timer" by any metric... Regardless, I'd wager that one of the conveniences of using Mona's regdate, rise, fall and LANCB as one of your reference points for said timeline is that unlike some users — said without fingerwagging, of course — she atleast did not register herself an army of sockpuppets, AFAIK. In other words, Mona the person and Mona the account appears to have had something like a 1:1 ratio of activity at RW — which might prove useful to any supposed chronicler, I suppose. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Bernie and Corbyn (and Mélenchon also, but I'm going to pretend he never existed, as I'm starting to believe it's impossible for the left to win any election) both want to support cooperatives (for exemple, Bernie tried to pass à Bill to create an employee ownership Bank to give loans to people who want to create worker's cooperatives or workers who want to but their company). What do you guys think about it ? Diacelium (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

My version of democratic socialism is based not on government control of the economy, but on the belief that employees should have the ultimate decision making power in the company, as the current corporate structure is fundamentally authoritarian. In a cooperative, the main goal is not the enrichment of a small elite of shareholders and executives, but instead rewarding the fruits of the labor of the employees back to the employees. I also feel like it will prevent humans from becoming obsolete due to automation, as workers will not vote to replace a significant amount of themselves with robots. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support cooperatives and their expansion. 184.88.254.182 (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hate to say it but, *gulps* I kind of support nobs on this. There, I said it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So, in the end, Bernie is actually a commie ? After all this time spent explaining he isn't ? Diacelium (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I eat bait. Does that make me worse than some dumb fish? Don't know, don't care, I will fight that fish. Of course support of communes or co opts doesn't make you a communist, it makes you a pluralist. Unless you only support communes and don't need votes. But communes aren't inherently bad, even if impractical, and in the US they're generally populated by democratic self-actualizing adults. Pretty useless voting bloc, if you run the numbers Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Communes are only good for transmitting STDs. nobs 00:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Im not sure what the OPs question is. Co-ops have existed for years and they are all other the place. they are neither new nor particularly radical and by all accounts rather successful. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Supporting cooperatives means supporting employee ownership of business, which is the cornerstone of many kinds of socialism. Bernie Sanders said, when he was younger, that he believes that in the long term all big companies should be owned by their workers (not the exact quote but he said something very close). If he supports cooperatives, and if he wants the state to support cooperatives it's probable that he still believes that. Diacelium (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

To make a co-op work, even just for the lifetime of its employees, requires a basic understanding of the capitalist system, which is probably the cause of most co-op failures. First and foremost, it takes money to make money. This it called capitalization. To capitalize a single job in the United States takes about, on the average, $150,000. This can come from only one of two sources: (1) borrowing or debt (what happens when one or more coop members crap out? since they have nothing invested? who is willing to step in and assume another's debt burden as well as their own? it places an added burden on everyone else) or (2) unpaid, or grossly underpaid wages until the co-op hits the break even point.

And by the nature of its very structure, in all fairness and justice, should a co-op ever survive to be profitable, a member who joined after the start up phase would owe a debt to the surviving members. So it has with it a class system or structure from its very inception. nobs

That is probably true, but don't most startup businesses fail already regardless of whether they are co-ops or not? That does not address your second point, but it is hard to accept that encouraging the creation of more co-ops would have a greater negative impact on borrowing than the encouragement of more traditional small businesses.

This does not address your second point, which I consider the more important criticism. The question then is how much stratification in power does a successful cooperative entail, and whether this is more significant than the current system. I believe as a moral axiom that power should be distributed across a society as equally as possible. This is a question of ethics more than economics or political science. That is the goal that I believe we should strive for, and in my opinion, the most important criteria for evaluating possible systems. Do cooperatives best further this goal? I honestly can't say that I know. Samstr (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sidenote: Melenchon convinced a little less than 1 in 5 to vote "socialist"; Le Pen convinced a little more than 1 in 5 to vote "nationalist". Why do left-wingers always get so nihilistic when they almost succeed? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 12:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

He arrived fourth, and I think he won't be a candidate in the next election (his party will probably have a new candidate but I don't think that it'll work). We still have the legislative elections but it doesn't look good either. We'll maybe have a big number of deputies if the Front National wins and implement integral proportional, but that's it (and I don't really want Le Pen to win). Diacelium (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

As there is a list of errors made by God (I forget the exact title offhand) - perhaps an article on God's good ideas/accidental Good Things/examples of (deity pronoun)'s sense of humour. 86.146.100.79 (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If we can get enough good examples, then perhaps we can create an article. Maybe like the existence of the North America nebula or God's face appearing in a bird dropping to show its sense of humor. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I mean, there's tons of good ideas multiple deities have tried to spread, although they aren't exactly unique ones. For example, Jesus tried to promote charity and forgiveness, although I wouldn't dare to venture far enough to claim either of those were "his" ideas... megalodon (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

When you get an article set up, count me in. Just give me a minute or three to think of his good ideas. #Can'tComeUpWithACleverSignature 01:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Did I just piss off a cheerleader's boyfriend, or did I stumble upon one of Andy's homeschoolers? If it's the former, I'm sure she's a lovely lady, no malice was intended. All I did was add some content to an aricle, with some snark, and I got hardblocked by JorisEnter. No warning or anything, just BOOM. Retired Old Guard (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this person. I don't even know what level of irony this video is supposed to be operating on. I am so confused. Samstr (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

And things are made stranger still by nobs' apparent admission to reading Rappoport's newsletter. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Rappoport has two other videos of him in the bathtub with his rubber duckies. According to nworeporter.com, "Innovative reporter Jon Rappoport fuses immersion journalism with bathtub humor in a sudsy new genre known as bathtub journalism."

This is probably not the time for me to be honest about how much time I actually spend editing RW from my smartphone... while in the tub.Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

This article first got my attention, cause in reading it, probably more than 50% of it both pro-Trumpers and anti-Trumpers could agree with it. Then a week later I get this one. I'm not ready to dismiss the guy as a total nut- bag yet anymore than I would John Podesta simply cause he dines with people who drink urine. nobs 01:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing that really confuses me is the bizarre outfit. Why is he wearing a winter cap, 3d glasses and a bright yellow raincoat? I kind of like it, but I'm still confused. Samstr (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Found this gem:

“”If I want to defend the existence of manmade global warming, I attack the PERSON who argues that warming is pseudoscience— and I ignore the CONTENT OF HIS ARGUMENT. This fallacy is called ad hominem; “toward the man.” Or I find a person making an extreme and ridiculous argument against global warming: “The sun actually exudes very little heat, so warming is impossible.” I use that person as my Straw Man. I imply he represents ALL people arguing against global warming, and I knock him down. The Straw Man fallacy. It is extremely helpful to study these fallacies and become able to spot them.

I read his three branches of logic post and it was ... strange. From what I recall of my formal logic class, there are two main branches, inductive and deductive reasoning. (Which produce probable and certain conclusions based on premises respectively.) Samstr (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

no, but i am in the uk. no one gives a shit here. no one talks about religion - its considered odd if you do. its curious. Stateside, there seems so much scrutiny on the religious credentials of presidential candidate and what church they may attend. Over here, religious belief in an mp is consider not just a liability but an actual threat, thus we get tim farron being asked about the gays on a daily basis. Can you tell from this which country has a separation of state and religion, and which has an established church? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ever since Romney got nominated and Trump got elected I think one can safely say the people no longer really care that much about churches... all the people who do care are Republican now and won't vote for Democrats no matter what, and even if you had a Satanist or pagan revivalist run for office, so long as they are pro-life evangelical conservatives will vote for them. Even Bernie's religion or lack thereof was never really brought up, but then again he was a COMMIE RED so that takes priority. As for the original point, it certainly does seem to be getting that way, where if I see a "proud" white-dude atheist I start thinking whether or not he's some kind of Sargon-sucking "left libertarian" who loves Trump and hates SJews. Of course, atheists have kinda always had an image problem, with quieter, reasonable atheists always trying to avoid the issue in public. I wasn't sure what you did with that issue in 2007 and I'm not sure what you do with it in 2017. Hentropy (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Atheists have the same PR problem as anarachists, that they're unprincipled, lawless, rable-rousers spitting in the eye of history, society, and everything that's good and decent. nobs 18:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@hentropy - if someone is going to make their atheism a major part of their identity, it doesnt matter what their politics are they are going to be a prick. atheism is a facile thing to hang an identity on. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Um, not to go #NotAllAtheists. I see where you're coming from, because there's a lot of high-profile atheists in the public eye who are complete assholes (especially the stereotypical fedora atheist), but there are also people like David Silverman of the FFRF who aren't prickish like, say, Dawkins or Hitchens. Maybe the non-asshole atheists base themselves upon humanism or some other trait, so I'm just going out on a limb here. Ɀexcoiler KingboltNoooooooo!There's a roach on my Wall! 21:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That's true for any religious or political affiliation really. But it's not just a matter of people who shout it from the rooftops and obnoxiously inject it into everything, but someone's religion is occasionally relevant and you can bring it up in good faith. It used to be that admitting you were an atheist (in the US) was something only certain "enlightened" liberals did, in some ways it's a good thing that it's spreading farther from that narrow group, but unfortunately that means that there's a large contingent of "cultural conservative" atheists who are obsessed with Islam, excuse anything bad a Christian has ever done and waving the Republican/Trump flag. Hentropy (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

What atheists don't see, and they are decidedly a minority the world over, is, non-atheists view them as conspiracy kooks, they way they spout off against any notion of deity, claiming the rest of the human species is brainwashed. nobs 22:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Richard Dawkins, do you think he has become worse over time? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I recall a time when he was more respectable and seemed to be more even handed in his criticism of religion. Recently he seems to have become more overtly Islamophobic. Perhaps many of these atheists have always had these beliefs, but they feel more comfortable openly sharing them in the current political climate. Samstr (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

But we do differentiate between "atheist" and "new atheist" even here. Still, the worst association that new atheism seems to have here is that "Dawkins can be quite shrill" (which I wouldn't really agree he is).

As for me, steeped in the American context of internet culture... No, still — but I do get the tweet.

Which atheists have you been reading, Ikan? I highly recommend Aron Ra, Michael Shermer and Richard Carrier (aside from the Hitch, of course) if you don't want to go down the increasingly suspect "Harris/Dawkins"-path. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

There are many intelligent and thoughtful atheists as well as people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, just like virtually every other category of people. That being said, there are some atheists (especially some of the more vocal ones on the internet such as the amazing atheist) that do make me feel more like identifying with that tweet. The best solution is probably not to recoil from the term, but to actively identify as an atheist while trying to be the most kind and considerate person possible. If enough people do that, then perhaps some negative connotations surrounding the term will start to disappear. Samstr (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That is, in part, what I try to do for feminism by calling myself a feminist with some consistency. I dunno if it'll work in the long run, but seems to me it's worth a try to not surrender as politically diverse, historically important and fundamentally egalitarian a rallying term as that to any shrill subset of illiberal anti-science cranks — just as one likewise should not fall away from said term and please the reactionary manospherians who wish daily for the entire feminist project (anti-sexism, women's rights, and all) to be declared defunct. It's a complicated issue, to be sure... And the fact is, the term "feminism" without qualifiers is almost meaningless at this point. For anyone to have a clue which feminism I mean for myself, for example, I seriously have to reference like five separate concepts for it to even make basic sense (something, something, sex-positive, analytical, empirical, liberal, etc...). Anyway, speaking of worthwhile non-abrasive atheists, let's not forget A.C. Grayling or Dan Barker as well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's dumb that people are still intolerant of others in the 21st century. My school embraces diversity and people actually want to make it a sanctuary campus even. People shouldn't have to hide who they really are. DanielleD

Off the back off Sam Harris's recent conversation with Charles Murray, I have to ask: people with IQ below 70 are considered intellectually disabled, right? Therefore, wouldn't that mean that the average sub-Saharan African is intellectually disabled, seeing as studies have consistently shown the mean IQ of sub-Saharan Africans to be below 70.Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

1) It looks like you're race baiting. 2) You didn't give any evidence to back up your claims other than an interview with a coauthor of the highly dubious book The Bell Curve. 3) IQ does not equal "intelligence"; it's a measure of some types of intelligence and it's biased by the culture that creates it. WP has a better article on this than we do and it discusses some of the culturally-bounded aspects of IQ.Bongolian (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

1) I am not race bating. 2) The fact that the mean IQ for sub-Saharan African Blacks is 70 did not come up in that interview (between Harris and Murray), which is why, contrary to your insinuation, I didn't use it to back up my claim. 3) Evidence to back up my claim is as follows: https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf. The results of the IQ tests are not disputed. It is the arguments and the conclusions to be drawn from them that are. Are they a true marker of intelligence? Are they, as you've said culturally biased? Are they predictive of educational and professional achievements? Are they result of genes, environment, education, culture etc? These are all questions worth asking. But none of them is the question I am asking. I am asking if sub-Saharan Africans are intellectual disabled based on the result of those studies? 4) Try not to assume the very worst about people in future. For all you know, I myself am Black. Levi Ackerman (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if your figures are correct or not - but my understanding of IQ tests is that they measure the ability of of people to do IQ tests. So what? Well, that, to an extent makes them a test of education. For example if you are illiterate, or have poor reading skills, you are going to have some problems taking the test. If you have not been educated in some abstract concepts you are going to have problems etc. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

If you give more information about your premises, it's more likely to make people not assume the worst about what you're asking. Framing your proposed conclusion as "the average sub-Saharan African is intellectually disabled", is an oversimplification at best since it ignores what IQ measures, differences in malnutrition rates and education opportunities, and possible measurement biases. The Rushton & Jensen paper you cited is a good one and it does go into these issues in some detail. Bongolian (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

As others have mentioned, IQ tests are not a good way to gauge intelligence. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It's also entirely possible that the tests prescribed just weren't things that the sample population were good at, like thinking abstractly. For instance, in 1900s America, the mean IQ was around 70. Does this mean that we've gotten smarter? Not necessarily. We've just added factors that increased our ability to score highly on IQ tests. The ability to think critically, the ability to think abstractly, formal education - these are all contributing factors in the mean 30 point rise in sample populations since 1900.

The three things that stand out are: first, formal schooling. That clearly has to be involved in the huge gains in vocabulary and general information we see in America since 1950 — vocabulary subtests of the IQ tests have risen by 17 points over those 50 years. If you project that back to 1900, a period for which we don't have adequate data, that would be 34 points, or two standard deviations. So that's a lot of vocabulary. It means that people today on average know enough vocabulary to mimic the speech of only the cultural elite of 1900.
The second factor is what Alexander Luria discovered when he tested rural Russian peasants in the 1930s. He discovered that pre-scientific people can't take the hypothetical seriously. That is, if you pose to them questions like, "There is snow at the North Pole; where there is snow, bears are white; what color are bears at the North Pole?" they would say, "Well, I've only seen brown bears. And only if a person came from the North Pole with testimony would I believe that the bears there are white."
They were addicted to the concrete world, not the world of hypotheticals. And that of course has a big impact on a whole range of tests. If you look at Raven's, where the gains have been so huge, the test consists of all hypothetical questions about symbols that are well removed from concrete reality.
Luria also asked his subjects about classification, such as, "What do dogs and rabbits have in common?" In 1900, a person would say, "You use dogs to hunt rabbits." Today you say, "They're both mammals." And that gets the question right.
In the past, people's minds were utilitarian. They weren't interested in hypotheticals or in classifying things together. But today people have "donned scientific spectacles," they have scientific habits of mind.

Finally, there's the wealth of visual images in the modern world. I think that is responsible for improvements in mapping skills and improvements in looking at three-dimensional figures and how they rotate.

My purely unscientific take is that IQ tests appear to measure numerical, geometrical, and analogical reasoning; and to some extent, test taking skills. But the basic purpose of human intelligence is networking in human societies. Part of it has to do with an arms race between deceivers and those who don't want to be deceived. There are all sorts of intelligence that IQ tests don't test for. Moreover, I find it hard to imagine that these arms races are absent anywhere. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

One more thing, you don't have an IQ. It's literally a score you received on a particular test, not a personal trait you have like gender or hair color. It's more accurate to say that they scored X. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

On a previous computer I had a version of Encarta (an encyclopedia program) with a quiz game on it. As a Brit I found a number of the 'easy' questions on history difficult (as they were US orientated) - but the 'difficult' (rest of the world) questions were much easier.

IQ tests that are calibrated to a particular cultural environment (people in parts of the world will #never# encounter traffic lights or ships etc - and over the past 20 years from 'so what X cannot use a computer' to 'X is peculiar as they cannot use a computer') will reveal some material information about persons and their abilities to understand and interact with the world, and the ways in which they access and manipulate information (most of us have probably not understood one presentation of information but when it is put in another way have no problem). However there are many sorts of intelligence (and why aren't people in Mensa in top postings in business, politics, academe...?) Put 'an urban person who had a high score in an IQ test' and a local in a particular environment and the latter is likely to survive longer. 86.146.99.7 (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The piece that I've been advocating for a decade now is apparently a central part of Republican proposed tax policy; Destination-based cash flow tax. In it, basically, the taxes are levied on where the revenue is made, not where the company declares its headquarters. So, for example, a car manufacturer has a steel mill in Poland, an auto plant in Germany, and a sales team in France, at each point the company pays the workers 10k, and the car is sold for 40k euros. Which set of workers made the 10k profit? The answer is the part time accountant in Lichtenstein. Under DBCFT, no, the car was sold in France, they have to pay French taxes on their profits.

Interestingly, the Koch brothers are vehemently opposed to it in spite of the Republicans being for it. So it has that stamp of approval, I guess. CorruptUser (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The Kochs are not mainline Republicans, if such exists anymore, but closer to ideological libertarian Freedom Caucus Republicans. It makes sense that the Kochs would be oppposed to the DBCFT since, a criticism of is that it would be protectionist. Bongolian (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It isn't really protectionist, even though it does have the result of "subsidizing" exports and taxing imports. The goal is to stop tax evasion. Really, if the company is selling to Your markets, the company made its profit in Your country. CorruptUser (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's not directly protectionist, but it encourages companies to become export-dominated by way of a tax break. Those companies that are import-dependent risk retaliation by way of tariffs from the exporting countries who see the tax break for the other companies as unfair competition. Bongolian (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson would have "stopped" the civil war the same way James Buchanan did, by ignoring the underlying problems and giving the slave-owning states even more undue power in national affairs, all the while perpetuating one of the most grievous crimes in the history of the country in the process. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 16:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That sounds too restrained for Jackson. I assume he'd just burn Boston to the ground. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the point Trump is trying to make is Jackson took on the Bourbon Democrats, the monied intersts, the slave holders and establishment. Bourbon Democrats, if it's not too far a stretch, would be like Limousine liberals today. They don't represent the typical redneck backwoods working class hillybilly white trash forgotten common man. nobs 09:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

there you going again assuming trump knows what he is doing, despite all evidence to the contrary. do you spend the day rocking in a corner chanting 'its all part of the plan' over and over? i am unsure if you are delusional or dishonest. it must take so much effort to have to constantly spin self evidently imbecilic statements from that clown everytime he opens his mouth. but hey, at least hes the anti-politicianTMAMassiveGay (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

also, why does every picture of trump i see look like he is about to suck a cock? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobs, did you take an American History course? Jackson never took on the Southern slaveholders. In fact, Southerners were about reaching the peak of their influence. The fucker also drove countless Native Americans out of their native homelands, even though the Supreme Court itself told him not to. "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." Ɀexcoiler KingboltNoooooooo!There's a roach on my Wall! 15:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sam Harris has always had sympathy for some nastier libertarian ideas. He has previously admitted that he believes in human biodiversity, wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act, and has recently been a victim of alt-right rhetoric about "free speech." No wonder so many "classical liberals" like Dave Rubin worship at his altar. This is additionally concerning because these ideas are at the foundation of neoreaction (Mencius Moldbug himself said that Murray's work was central to some neoreactionary beliefs), and by supporting these ideas, Sam Harris is making his fanbase sympathetic to neoreaction. Gutza1 (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, so this is the type of shit that concerns me about Sam Harris. The typical kneejerking against Harris is unfounded, but here's the twist — kneejerking aside, he's got a growing resumé of legit BS moves. And this is one of those things, it seems to me.

Harris is at his most reasonable when conversing strictly on topics of philosophy, AFAIK — on metaphysics, theory of mind, theology and free will. His best quotes on those topics are, I think, excellent.

But the further he strays from those topics, the shakier it all gets, it seems to me. And shit like having Murray on — allegedly without calling the guy on his bull — just comes off as a huge red flag to me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

If I got a Bachelors in Philosophy too I hope you'll be my first fan. Although really, it's funny how Sam Harris fans have now flocked to Murray arguing he's misunderstood and maligned by the 'regressive leftists'. If only they just read The Bell Curve and listened to Sam they'd understand!!! It's not really racist! They're Just Asking Questions! Why do you hate science??? Hollow (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I consider Harris a crank and more of just an entertainer than a legitimate scientist or philosopher, he's always associated himself with extreme and dubious ideas such as Ray Kurzweil and transhumanism as well, his philosophy is basically just vanilla scientific utilitarianism / social Darwinism which has fascist undertones.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Who "cannot tolerate that Scientology is successfully improving conditions around the world. This same 2 percent is opposed to any effective self-betterment activity. The reason they so rabidly oppose Scientology is because it is doing so much to help society. Those who are upset that people are improving are few in number compared to the millions who have embraced Scientology and applaud its effort to build a better world."

My favourite Scientology thing is that I got caught by one when I was out and they gave me a pamphlet that had a questionnaire in it for me to fill out and send back so they could tell me how much money I need to pay them to be free of Thetans. But the pamphlet wasn't freepost or anything, I had to supply the envelope and a stamp. That made me chuckle. X Stickman (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"We have the secret to purify your soul, now give us your money" Who's idea was it to make religion a market ? Diacelium (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That amount of hatred towards Einstein really disgusts me as as far as I know, and I'm not a physicist, Einstein's theories are well grounded in physics and considered so reinforced, so that it is very much "closed". Theoretically, even if Einstein mainly just confirmed or synthesized existing ideas, still his contribution in confirming and unifying these ideas in such complex fields of study would be most valuable and honorable (I would not be surprised, as a non-physicist, to discover that these people lie and he had some major original contributions of his own and I really don't want to talk on a subject I am not enough knowledgeable in). Comostas (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Video description calls Einstein a plagiarist, communist, Zionist and a fraud. He is a constructed myth." I suspect the video is just fringe anti-Semitic poo-slinging and for Neo-Nazi poo slingers. I also think it's disgusting such things like this even exist. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Einstein is the reason we have the theory of relativity. By the age of 24, he had published not one, not two, but four papers that helped revolutionise physics. Parrrley 23:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I take sensationalist criticism like that as the speaker playing iconoclasm to get attention, or as Lefty pointed out, anti-semitic in intent. I'm all for taking a critical eye to influential historical figures and keeping them from being mythologized, but things like that video smack of desperation and pettiness. 71.188.73.196 (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a brilliant talk from one of my favorite philosophy lecturers of all time, Steven Gimbel.

Truly an engaging (and funny) lecturer. I have some of his courses in audiobook format, and he's a real expert.

Topics touched upon in the above video include: the first world war, Descartes, Galileo, Newton (who was actually a bit of an intelligent falling proponent), the Nobel disease, cosmopolitanism, ethnic/religious minority, the Catholic Church, Judaism,...

Today my mother came to visit me on campus. We went downtown and ended up stopping at a frozen yogurt place called Sweet FROG. Despite the mascot that appeared next to the name, FROG did not refer to the animal, but rather an acronym, "Fully Rely on God". This was accompanied by Christian rock and a number of prominently displayed posters with Bible verses. My mother seemed more bothered by it than I was, expressing concern that it could alienate or offend people of other religions who enter the establishment not knowing of its religious message. I can understand this perspective, but I don't feel particularly bothered by such messaging unless I know that money I spend at the establishment will be used to further political causes I disagree with or find morally abhorrent, such as Chick-fil-A's association with anti-LGBT organizations. Am I wrong in expressing this sentiment? Should I be opposed to private businesses including blatant religious branding? Samstr (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. They can do what they want. You don't have to spend there if you don't want. The "shut down speech that offends us" can easily be used against atheists, and usually is. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It can get problematic if they hide who's behind it (like Hare Krishna restaurants) or if they're behind negative social impacts like attempting to defund innocent bystanders' healthcare (like Hobby Lobby). In the US, it's kind of awful since everybody gives religions a total tax break for not real social benefit (no property taxes no clergy salary taxes), we're more-or-less subsidizing them and they're business wings even though the businesses (are supposed to) pay taxes. On the plus side, some of these outfits dilute their own religion by putting Bible verses on napkins and such (formerly Alaska Airlines, and still In-N-Out Urge In-N-Out Burger). Bongolian (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

If their treatment of their employees is in accord with the Sermon on the Mount, I wouldn't care about their politics or theology. Somehow I suspect that hamburger and fried chicken chains do not. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

My two cents: aside from the obvious givens, like the sanctity of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to assemble and the right to peacefully conduct business... Here's the plain facts:

Businesses all vary across a spectrum, ranging between more- and less communicative about any supposed ideals.

Consumers also vary across a similar spectrum, ranging instead from "more informed" to less so.

It's the moral obligation of the business to be up front with its customers, and likewise, it's the moral obligation of the consumers to stay informed.

That being said, neither of these obligations are functions of each other. The moral reasons why businesses should communicate with its customers have nothing to do with how informed any given consumer may already be.

Likewise, the moral reasons why consumers ought to remain constantly vigilant and inquisitive have nothing to do with how well or poorly any given business might have chosen to conduct itself ethically.

In fact, the reasons both for being informative as a business, and for making sure you find things out as a consumer, is that businesses may not be perfectly up front, nor consumers fully informed.

It's a question of ethics and rational business sense, no matter if you're the business or the consumer. As such, make sure you conduct all your business rationally and with morals — be you consumer or vendor — and the problem "solves itself", as it were. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

And if you refuse to eat there becsuse of religion, your guilty of discriminiation, bigotry, snd possibly a hate crime. So you have to find another excuse to pass them up. nobs 22:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobs, you're being loony again. People in the US have the freedom of association: they can choose whom they talk to and whom they patronize; this is why boycotts are generally legal. Businesses that are open to the public on-the-other-hand have not been entirely humanized by the Supreme Court — yet. They are required to serve the public without discrimination as per the Civil Rights Act. I am not a bigot if I don't eat at Chick-fil-A because I think they're a bunch of assclowns. BTW, I do patronize a particular Christian business because, well — convenience, and they haven't made public asses of themselves yet. Bongolian (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

If one can't tolerate differing opinions themselves, one shouldn't be telling other people to be more tolerant. I frequently go to Chinese restaurants with Buddha statues, and I don't complain about them being offensive despite being a Christian. I also enjoy an occasional cup of Starbucks coffee, despite the CEO's idiotic comments. If someone can't handle a business owner's culture, he or she should choose to patronize other businesses. 67.238.67.250 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It's no different in hiring and firing. You can never say you refused to hire someone cause they're a woman, you to say cause she un1ualified from lack of experience because she soent too many years rwising children. Or that you fired someone cause they're black; you have to say you fired them cause they were stealing. Then you only have to defend yourself against the claim that the rules against stealing are enforced differently between black and white. nobs 02:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with companys being religious. In fact, I love ChickFilA and Hobby Lobby! But refusing to hire women is just outright being a dick. — Unsigned, by: DanielleD / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This site, RationalWiki, has to be the most freaking stupid bunch of nonsense I have seen in a long time. To think you people supposedly align with science... 67.238.67.250 (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I love idiots who go "My bigoted instincts tell me A, so A must be science, and anyone contradicting me must be anti-science" because you scratch the surface even a little, and you instantly hit a bedrock of ignorance. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 15:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Are we anti science because we promote evilution? How are we anti science? Christopher (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Supporting evolution or even creationism does not make one anti-science, but creating a website where almost all of the articles take cheap shots at opponents like adolescent siblings engaged in an argument does. The flame wars people here appear to engage in on a regular basis over trivial issues seem to support my theory that this website is operate by middle school students. 67.238.67.250 (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

1) Example please 2) Even if we did do all that, how does that make us anti science? 3) I would argue that supporting a pseudoscientific idea such as creationism makes you anti science. Christopher (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

1) Most of the articles, some of the threads on this very page, and anything in the history of the "Chicken Coop" 2) It is anti-science because this website claims to support science, therefore tarnishing the reputation of science. 3) I challenge you to explain how creationism, in itself, attacks science or scientific method. For that matter, I challenge you to define scientific method, in your own words. Narrow minds respecting only the mainstream ideas of the day are the root of the so-called "anti-science movement". 4 [extra credit]) I'm a nurse (as you can see from my IP address and took plenty of science courses in college. Can you say the same? 67.238.67.250 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

1) Specific mainspace example please. 2) anti science is defined as rejecting the scientific method and attempting to discredit it, not "tarnishing it's reputation" (which you haven't proved we do) 3 a.) Creationism is a belief that contradicts the conclusions arrived at by using the scientific method, it therefore has to reject the scientific method. That's anti science. 3 b.) Use a bloody dictionary, or Wikipedia 4) One of the most blatant arguments from authority I've ever come across. Christopher (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen Satan around Science HQ since the "butter vs. margarine" debate. Hentropy (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

If you applied the scientific method to studying the Christian Right you would come to the conclusion this is the conclusion they have come to. Don't let your emotions and prejudices misjudge the facts and evidence. nobs 21:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say, could you clarify? Christopher (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That the Christian Right views much of the science movement as anti-God and Satanic. I believe this can be scientificaly​ proven. But the minute you laugh or show any bias you destroy the science behind the conclusion.

Frankly speaking, the cult-like devotion to science we see today is a spinoff of two TV characters from the 1960s, the Professor from Gilligans Island and Spock from Star Trek. Prior to these two characters who alwayd had all the answers to all the hard problems, American culture didn't have such blind devotion to science. nobs 02:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Good Lord Rob, you really are such a fucking idiot that you're even too dumb for Conservapedia. (This isn't a response to an argument, but it remains true and apposite.) - David Gerard (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

To them it might destroy the science, but overall, this is a problem of attitude and presentation, not a problem of the argument itself. On the other hand, your characterization of atheists is akin to a stereotype, a hasty generalization and it's also an attitude problem from the Christian Right which some are condescending and even spiteful to atheists and cry persecution when they're still the majority (albeit a shrinking one) and some from the Christian Right even take offense to the mere existence of atheists (think of pro-atheist billboards which make no statement further than "if you're atheist, you're not alone" or "this road was built by an atheist organization" types or even have just one word "atheist" and those get vandalized or companies are reluctant to advertise those). Both these attitudes is probably why the two are so callous to each other and while I do understand that atheists may have a stubborn attitude problem, the Christian Right is also guilty of characterizing their fellow atheist opponents as less-than-flattering people as you just did, which may have led to the very attitude you yourself don't like.--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying is an adversarial relationship doesn't have to exist. Each side can co-exist with mutual respect. As such, they become models of tolerance to the Islamic world. Each side could allow the other to prosylitze for 5 minutes, then politely slam the door in their face.

This tolerance begins by looking at each sides underlying doctrime. Christians might say, "I believe Jesus died for my sins." Athiests might say, "I believe Christians are full of shit." That's a weak doctrine. Or tweaking Christians by suing in court to remove a nativity scene from the courthouse lawn doesn't help to build good faith or mutual respect. Athiests need to build something positive, like human liberation. But attacking people, organizations, or beliefs, hasn't i proved the cause or movement or allowed it fulfill its potential. nobs 03:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Why can't we all be humanists and fight for equality and human rights for everyone and human dignity and celebrate everything that we've managed to accomplish? Parrrley 03:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

nobs: Again, you're characterizing atheists as arrogant and willing to characterize their fellow Christians as "full of shit" when it's this: Christians believe Jesus died for my sins, Atheists do not believe Jesus died for their sins. That's that, please don't add further weight to atheists by characterizing them as crude and snide. And atheists remove nativity scenes not because they hate Christians but because they view the scene as an endorsement of a religion, which is argued isn't supported on the federal level on the technical terms. Now, you can argue that all state constitutions do explicitly endorse Christianity (surprising for some) and therefore perhaps it's okay to have Christian themes around state buildings, though that's an ongoing debate right now since it's clearly a legal contradiction here and that's always a mess. Overall, though, this doesn't mean atheists hate Christians, but they try to endorse neutrality and secularity while also promoting freedom of expression, which is limited by the aforementioned neutrality and secularity. As for building something positive, I do think atheists don't really have a unified group out there since atheists are a very diverse bunch of people (which is to be expected since the only thing they share is a lack of a belief and even this lack of belief varies between "whatever" to "religion is not good for our society and should be destroyed" extremist), but it's difficult to unite atheists as some people don't even like billboards that merely call for atheists and it doesn't help that they're still a distrusted minority, so they need to work on building a good image for themselves before they can attempt something big, and the religious also should play their part in softening their attitudes and help cooperate. Finally I do think atheists and theists can cooperate, not arguing otherwise, but it's really hard to look past those differences that I present, including the attitude problems, and promote love and benefit to humanity, which is something we all want. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I read a study written by Eric Kaufmann (on whom our friends over at Conservapedia have an article) and published by Policy Exchange, a British think tank which contends that racial self-interest is not the same thing as racism. Here's a link to the study: https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Racial-Self-Interest-is-not-Racism-FINAL.pdf. I read this study with a critical, but open, mind, thinking there may be some truth in the premise of this argument. But even then I found myself thinking, "how can racial self-interest NOT be racism. Racism isn't limited to the irrational hatred of other races or White supremacy or separatism. The latter two (separatism and supremacy) are inextricably linked to racial self-interest". Nevertheless, I proceeded to skim through the study. It's an interesting article, but ultimately, in my opinion, an unconvincing argument. To boot, I looked up "racism" in the Oxford English Dictionary and here is what I got: "A belief that one’s own racial or ethnic group is superior, or that other such groups represent a threat to one's cultural identity, racial integrity, or economic well-being; (also) a belief that the members of different racial or ethnic groups possess specific characteristics, abilities, or qualities, which can be compared and evaluated. Hence: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against people of other racial or ethnic groups (or, more widely, of other nationalities), esp. based on such beliefs." Emphasis on the emboldened part. I'd love to know what you think, if any of you is interested. I apologise if I do not respond as I am currently in the vandal-bin. Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What the fuck is racial self-interest? Like... why the fuck should I care, even marginally, more about some random asshole in New Mexico whose only connection to me is skin of vaguely the same shade? A lot of people complain about the "euphemism treadmill" when it comes to not insulting people, but the euphemism treadmill for "why it's okay to hate black people" is just so much worse. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 13:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"I'd love to know what you think, if any of you is interesting."

I think we've heard enough from the interesting people (e.g. Nobs.) What do the normal people think? 94.1.138.166 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

My bad. That ought to have read "interested". But, I share ikanreed's sentiments. I can't stand these rather transparent attempts to sanitise racism. The author, Professor Kaufmann, claims that the aim of the report is to create space for ideas around ethnic interests to be more openly aired without accusations of racism. But think about it, what he is essentially saying is that there is nothing wrong with my White neighbour thinking our society (in our instance, the UK) should have less of my kind (I'm Black), and to such an end, immigration policy should be engineered so that less of my kind is admitted into the country, because my neighbour is afraid more of my kind somehow harms his kind. How is that not racist? Just because people who hold these views don't think of these views as racist doesn't mean they aren't in fact. There's a new kind of political correctness brewing. It's the kind where people - influential people - are afraid to call out racism. It is now politically correct to bend over backwards to tell people they are not being racist and their concerns are legitimate as those very same people express openly racist opinions Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 15:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It's possible for racial self-interest to not be racist, but only in two scenarios.

Imagine a world with only one race. (Perhaps we might call it the "human race".) Since there are no other races, "promoting" one's own race wouldn't be prejudiced against other races.

Imagine a world with unlimited resources. ("Fully Automated Luxury...") In this world, nothing is zero-sum (comes at the expense of someone else), and so "promoting" one's own race wouldn't come at the expense of other races.

It's a case where the theory looks plausible but the reality never measures up. Anyone who claims to be looking out for the best interests of my "race" is almost certainly a racist. I'm much more interested in politically supporting people who share my values anyway. Bongolian (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If there were no significant differences between people they would still find ways of identifying 'them' (= less good) and us (The Best): in past centuries 'them from the next village' were regarded as untrustworthy foreigners ,and all the football chants to the effect 'We are the greatest you lot are {string of pejorative terms and activities)'. 86.146.99.7 (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If some Koreans want an immigration policy which gives preference to people of Korean language/culture, in order to maintain a Korean cultural majority in Korea, does that make them racist? And ask the same question with "Korea" replaced by China, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. And then also ask that question with "Korea" replaced by France, Poland, Germany, Norway, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand or Australia... Now, as to myself, I support a culturally diverse immigration policy; I think the ideal should be global freedom of movement, and while I recognise that ideal in its pure form is unlikely to be practical in today's world, I would like us to be moving towards it instead of away from it, and so given that I don't have a lot of sympathy for immigration restrictions based on cultural or ethnic or linguistic preference. All that said, even though I personally don't support such policies, I think it is unfair to label all supporters of such policies as racist, but I think that is an increasingly common smear. And, I thought the basic point of that paper was to say the same thing, although I don't think it did the best job of making that point. (((Zack Martin)))™ 04:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You're conflating language with race and with nationality. In some cases they're closely linked but not always. As an example, in pre-WWII Germany many German Jews spoke German as their first language. German is an official language in 3 countries, and is spoken as a sizeable minority language in several others. Bongolian (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I am conflating them. Or at least, not any more than many other people do–if anything, I think I am responding to a conflation made by others. I'm not sure there is such a thing as "race"–my understanding was the concept is not considered biologically valid. Imagine if Germany had an immigration policy which gives preference to native German speakers (whether they be Swiss or Belgian or from wherever) – would that be racist? Well, I'm sure some people would call it that. Now what if an English speaking country had an immigration policy which preferred native English speakers – I am certain some people would call that racist. And consider proposals like "ban Muslim immigration" or "ban Hispanic immigration" (neither of which I support) – the first is about religion and the second is about culture/language–there are Muslim people of all "races" and there are Hispanic people of all "races"–yet both proposals will frequently be given the label "racist". I think the words "racist" and "racism" are so broad and vague that I actually doubt the usefulness of those words, and wonder if we should dispense with them – no doubt they name a lot of real and awful phenomena, but they also get applied to a lot of other stuff which is either less awful, or else equally awful but not particularly connected with the questionable concept of "race" – so, maybe we should replace them with a more precise vocabulary–e.g., rather than just slapping the label "racist" on X, explain in detail why you consider X to be an imprudent or even immoral proposal. (e.g. "banning Muslim immigration is racist" vs "it is immoral to disadvantage millions of moderate and peaceful members of a religious group just because some of their coreligionists are violent extremists, and doing so makes government policy religiously non-neutral which is a precedent which is likely to be used against non-Muslims later – if you can ban Muslim immigration, you can also ban Christian immigration or atheist immigration" – the second statement is far more informative and useful than the first) (((Zack Martin)))™ 09:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Discrimination based on language has the some of the same problems as discrimination based on "race". Which German language would the Germans use for discrimination purposes? I've been told by a native-German speaker that there are some rural Bavarian dialects that are very difficult for other native German speakers to understand. Additionally, there are quite a few German dialects spoken today, both within Europe and abroad (e.g., see Geographical distribution of German speakers). Some of these dialects probably have low-comprehensibility with standard German. Why is a native speaker better than a non-native fluent speaker. Lots of nations, even if they have 1 official language, also have other indigenous languages in use. E.g., the UK has Welsh, Scots, Cornish and Irish (which have some degree of recognition). Bongolian (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that language discrimination is problematic. Although, it can be put on a much more objective footing than "race" can. There are language tests, such as IELTS and TOEFL for English, DELF/DALF and TEF for French, the Goethe-Institut exams for German, etc. You cannot of course strictly test for being a native speaker; but, if you set a sufficiently hard exam and demand a sufficiently high cutoff, you can in practice exclude all but the most fluent of non-native speakers. If Germany sets a difficult German language exam, and demands immigrants pass it, they will obviously use German Standard German (Bundesdeutsches Hochdeutsch)–but, a native speaker of a different German dialect, could probably learn to pass an exam in that dialect (even a difficult one), with far more ease than a person with a more distantly related native tongue. Actually, I don't know about Germany specifically, but I do know some countries already use language tests in immigration, such as Australia and Canada – but, a proposal for language-based immigration restriction might propose using far more difficult tests than what Australia and Canada currently use. But, my point is – if such a very hard language test was implemented (and I don't think it should be), would some people call it "racist"? I am sure many would, even though this has no obvious connection to race at all. Which I think supports the argument that the words "racism" and "racist" are overused, and probably should be replaced with more precise vocabulary, or reserved for ideas which are explicitly and unabashedly racist (e.g. South African apartheid). (((Zack Martin)))™ 21:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Saloon bar is much more casual, forums are usually for 'serious discussions' where you get the walls of text everywhere. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Another difference is that forums are more permanent. You can sticky stuff in the bar to stop it from archiving but it's only done for important stuff like mod elections. Christopher (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

... is there an infestation of 'stupid user names' and can they (or their IPs) be banished to the 'look at me' playground (until they get so bored they decide to be sensible/develop proper snark abilities). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

In light of whatever it is that happened today, I'm thinking it'd be a good idea to change my name to a pseudonym so these weirdos don't stalk me outside this wiki. How do I do that? DanielleD (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

one thing that you can do is make a new account, but I'll look into it to see if I can change it. Also if you don't want werdos (like me) to find you outside this wiki or the internet, use different name and emails. A proxy can help to. 2d4chanfag (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Just start a new account and start using it - David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

So I was looking at an old change I put on Armenian Genocide denial, and the content of the ref for the Hitler quote doesn't match what the wikitext says it should be. I can't figure out what's wrong. Anyone have any guesses? ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 15:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks fine for me, what exactly is the problem? Christopher (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, if you click the little [1] at the top, it takes you to a cite that looks like this:

You can try to convert Christians to atheism all you want, but faster than you can do that, Christian women will just keep pumping more Christian babies out of their vaginas. Atheists have a low fertility rate, which is why, like homosexuals, atheists have to make an effort to CONVERT their followers rather than just expecting people will be that way naturally. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think atheists want to "convert Christians to atheism". I just think that any mature person who still believes in god or gods must be a little … ah; … what's the word … stupid that's it. In any case there's nothing about atheism to convert to, it's just a matter of realising that religion is bunk. Pippa (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Italy is a Christian nation - but has a declining population; Ken Livingstone, not known for being a Christian, has five children. Therefore MRE is 'very slightly wrong' (and on other points). 86.191.125.212 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah but I'm referring more to Filipino and Latino Catholics and white Mormons. Possibly Jehovah's Witnesses as well. And also probably Baptists. Them things be makin babies like they animals fightin a war of attrition cuz it's wabbit season. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You come across as rather unpleasant MRE - and do you have actual official statistics?

Christian women will just keep pumping more Christian babies out of their vaginas? Firstly, I didn't know babies were born religious, secondly that's a rather harsh way of saying it don't you think? I feel like you're reducing a particular faction of women to a mere baby factory with that comment. Stupid misogynist. DanielleD (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a valid point behind what MRE is saying, although it could have been better expressed. Let's not talk about Christians for a moment, let us talk about Jews. There is a spectrum of religious liberalism/conservatism within the Jewish people. At the most liberal end, we can put secular/non-religious Jews for whom Jewishness is purely an ethnic/national/cultural identity and not a religious one. Next comes Humanistic Judaism–I would say in general about organised humanism (not just Jewish), that it keeps the form of religion but dispenses the content, so it is slightly more conservative than just plain unorganised irreligion, but not by much. Next would come Reconstructionist Judaism, then Reform/Liberal Judaism, then Conservative/Masorti Judaism, then Modern Orthodoxy, then Traditional Orthodoxy (Hasidic, Haredi, etc.) Within each of these groups, there is a subspectrum of liberal-to-conservative expression. For example, while Traditional Orthodoxy is the most religiously conservative end of Judaism, but within it Satmar (for example) is far more conservative than Chabad Lubavitch (for example). Now, if we look at birth rates, assimilation rates, intermarriage rates, along this spectrum, what do we find? At the most liberal end of Judaism, birth rates are low, people have small families and have children later, intermarriage and assimilation are high; at the most conservative end, birth rates are high, people have large families, people start families earlier (early twenties instead of late twenties or thirties), rates of intermarriage and assimilation are very low. Of course these are just communal trends and so don't always apply at the individual level – somewhere out there you will find a Jewish atheist couple with six kids, and a Satmar couple who are childless or have only one or two children (most likely due to infertility or other medical issues) – but I don't think anyone who has a half decent knowledge of Judaism could deny this trend exists – just go read up about Kiryas Joel, New York. Now, what do these trends mean for the future of the Jewish people? It means that the numbers of liberal/secular Jews are going to shrink and shrink and shrink, due to their low fertility and tendency to intermarry and assimilate away, while the ultra-conservative Jews are going to grow and grow and grow, due to their high fertility and very low rates of intermarriage/assimilation. And this phenomena isn't just true for Judaism, the same observation holds for Christianity and Islam too (and probably non-Abrahamic religions as well, but I don't know enough about them to comment.) Very conservative Christians (whether Evangelical or Catholic or Mormon or whatever) have bucketloads of kids, the liberal end of Christianity (including cultural Christians such as Richard Dawkins) have relatively few kids, and a much higher proportion of childless individuals. So, I think MRE is right in that religious conservatives will grow over time. Kiryas Joel has an annual population growth rate of 5.6% per annum – if it keeps that rate up, in 70 years its residents will number over one million people. A few centuries from now, New York State is likely to be a theocracy ruled by ultra-Orthodox Jews, because they will vastly outnumber the non-Jewish (and non-ultra-Orthodox-Jewish) residents of the state. (And this isn't just true of ultra-Orthodox Jews – what is going to happen to Utah and the surrounding states? Mormons breed like rabbits, Mormon polygamists breed like mutant rabbits from outer space.) Demography is destiny, and the destiny of atheism isn't very bright. People assume that beliefs win out in the long-run by virtue of being true, but I doubt that is correct – a false belief which encourages a high birth-rate and makes defection personally costly will in the long run win out over a true belief which encourages a lower birth rate and imposes lower switching costs on defectors from it. (((Zack Martin)))™ 22:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Since when were gay people desperate to "convert" people to homosexuality? Christopher (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The population argument sounds convincing, but as long as the Jewish lack political power (which they do at least compared to the dominant ethnicity and whites and Protestants), it doesn't matter how big their population is, as demographic minorities certainly aren't defined by numerical minorities. Arguing that New York is likely to "transform into a theocracy ruled by ultra-Orthodox Jews" sounds a bit slippery-slopey so it made me raise an eyebrow. I really don't think that's how population growth works... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You are right that a numerical majority doesn't necessarily result in a political majority. However, in a democracy, a numerical majority is likely to become a political majority within a few generations. Political power lags demographic change, but in a democracy they will eventually meet. This is especially true if we are talking about a group like ultra-Orthodox Jews, most of whom believe in fully participating in the political process. (A minority of them stay out of Israeli politics due to anti-Zionist purism, but even those don't have any qualms about voting in countries other than Israel.) And, you are right that we can't just extrapolate exponential growth trends indefinitely, because at some point they will run up against limits to growth and turn into logistic trends instead. The question is, will ultra-Orthodox Jews in the State of New York hit a growth limit before they become the majority population of the state? I don't know what the growth limit would be. They could stop having large families and increase their rate of defection to secularism/irreligion – that has happened before to many other groups, e.g. Catholics. However, the ultra-Orthodox Jewish leadership is very aware of this possibility, and working much harder to prevent it than the Catholic leadership ever did – ultra-Orthodox Jews are far more insular than Catholics are for example, and so much more resistant to the processes of secularisation, assimilation and intermarriage. Other eventualities could intervene – war, famine, epidemic – although, those kinds of events might not make any difference to the ultimate outcome, if they impact the non-ultra-Orthodox-Jewish population just as much as ultra-Orthodox Jews. (It is of course also concievable that ultra-Orthodox Jews might fare better or worse under these conditions than the wider population, which might assist or prevent their eventual demographic dominance.) Persecution or genocide could also intervene–I think both of them are unlikely in the North American context, but one can't rule them out entirely. So, nothing is certain in history, but I still think an eventual ultra-Orthodox-Jewish majority in New York state is more likely than not. (((Zack Martin)))™ 09:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Sooo...that means us Latino peoples are going to lord over America in the forseeable future? I'm sorry, you're using this weird logic that in the end says that ultra-Orthodox Jews might rule New York in the future, so that technically means that it is also somehow "likely" that Latino people will lord over the American Southwest or something like that? Do you have the actual proof to back it up? Ɀexcoiler KingboltNoooooooo!There's a roach on my Wall! 18:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the Latino population in the US will continue to grow, no doubt. They will form the majority in ever larger parts of the US, and I think Latino politicians will have great success to come. (Political power tends to lag demographic change, which is why Latinos are underrepresented politically today, but that will be less true in the future.) However, I don't think Latinos can really be compared to ultra-Orthodox Jews. While Latinos do have a higher birth rate than non-Hispanic whites, the Latino birth rate is trending downwards so that demographic advantage will decline over time. (Continued immigration will replenish their numbers, but the birth rate is trending downwards in the immigration source countries too.) Latinos tend to assimilate quite well, and often within a couple of generations have switched near completely from Spanish to English. (Of course, Spanish survives better in some Latino ethnicities/communities/individuals than in others.) Religiously, Latinos are mostly moderate and not particularly resistant to the processes of secularization, which leads to lower birth rates in the long run. Even though some Latino families today have lots of kids, it is unlikely their descendants will continue to have families so large. By contrast, an ultra-Orthodox Jewish couple with six kids, the great great grandchildren will probably each have around six kids too. There is a high rate of intermarriage between the Latino and non-Latino population, which contributes to Latino assimilation; by contrast, ultra-Orthodox Jews almost never marry non-Jews, and marriages with non-ultra-Orthodox Jews are almost as rare. For ultra-Orthodox Jews, intermarriage really only happens with defection or with conversion. While there are some conscious efforts among some Latinos to maintain Spanish against English, it really cannot be compared in intensity to the efforts of many ultra-Orthodox Jews to maintain Yiddish – speaking Yiddish is seen as a protection against the defilement by the immorality of English-speaking culture, whereas I don't think many Latinos see Spanish and English in quite that way. A hundred years from now, Kiryas Joel will likely still be full of Yiddish speakers, whereas the descendants of most Latino Americans will probably speak more English than Spanish. Also, Latinos politically aren't hugely different from non-Latinos, so political dominance by Latinos is unlikely to radically change politics or society. (Since on the whole Latinos tend to lean more center-left than non-Latinos do, it will probably help the center-left politically, but nothing more drastic than that.) By contrast, ultra-Orthodox Jews have values far from the mainstream, so if they become politically dominant in an area, expect much bigger changes. (((Zack Martin)))™ 16:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right Zach. God ordered them to be fruitful and multiply. Instead they'd rather butt fuck each other and practice safe sex. This isn't rocket science, you know. nobs 13:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zack

A week late, but Hasidic Judaism is not a "traditional" Orthodox sect. Amongst Ashkenazim in the pale, the important thing to have was a Jewish education. But simply put, not everyone is smart enough (or can afford) to become well versed in the laws. But almost everyone can sing along. So the Hasidic movement dispensed with most of the esoteric BS and just had constant group singing combined with the religion. It became popular among the uneducated (and poor), but the educated mostly viewed it as a cult. However, it managed to grow rapidly due to high birth rates since, well, uneducated, in addition to conversions from other uneducated/poor Jews. The other Orthodox groups did adopt some of the singing into the prayers, though.

As for NY in particular, well, ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic groups rely very heavily on social services for income, because when you have 10 kids and your wife has to quit working after the second kid while you spend all your time studying instead of actually working, it's inevitable. This has led to a HUGE amount of animosity amongst non-Jews (check out Kiryas Joel sometime), and I really sympathize with them, though ultra-Orthodox Jews are far from the only group in NY state that abuse the system like a redheaded stepchild. What will happen is that either everyone will get fed up and eliminate the child benefits (I advocate no additional after child #2), or the system will go broke in which case the child benefits are gone entirely. CorruptUser (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm an honor student, I am a sorority member, I an an athlete, and I am a beautiful woman, but some people seem to treat me like crap because I have a child at age 20. I'm engaged to my child's dad, so it's not like I'm a slut. Sure, I look like a high school girl, but I'm not one and it's upsetting when I go to a store or restaurant and people give me funny looks. What is RationalWiki's opinion on this? DanielleD (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, personally, I feel sorry people treat you like that. I myself didn't have kids until I was 30 (and my wife was in her mid-late thirties when we had our first, she is older than me), but I don't think there is anything wrong with having kids young, I think it is actually good for society. Unfortunately society makes it harder than it should be to do that, with the competing demands of education and career, and I wish society would try harder to help young families balance raising children with those demands. (((Zack Martin)))™ 22:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

There is just a stigma associated with young age and children, and you're not conforming to society's expectations of 20-year-old women: that they should be studying hard in college and not having kids. I'm actually older than you, DanielleD, at 22 (a young woman), and I don't look down on people like you with children, but without any background knowledge on you, if I have to be honest, there is some worry and concern about you, like if you're really *ready* to have kids and wondering if you should focus on your career first. I think about the best for you and your kids. But for some, maybe it translates to "weird looks" and even nastier reactions like "you're not ready, you made a poor choice to have kids" types. I know I would get funny looks if I had to take care of my own child and my parents would certainly scold me for having poor judgement and I would also rather focus on my own life first before such a hefty investment. In the end, it's all about societal expectations and you're bound to get treatment and weird looks if you don't follow some rules. I think the poor treatment stems from pity and contempt because people might think you're making your child's life hard but the funny looks might come from friendlier people who also have pity and concern. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That's just it. I do well in school despite having a child, but people act like I'm either destined to be a loser or a bad mom. I don't understand that. I get WIC and my parents help me with money, and that causes some people to act like I'm a snowflake, but if I worked, people would say I wasn't taking care of my baby like I should. DanielleD (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Who are you to judge whether a person is being judgemental? Perhaps a snicker is a sign of approval, or perhaps judgemental traits are an inherent social norm to a culture alien to yourself. Show some tolerance. nobs 13:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You must be white. If you were non-white, people would consider it normal that you're having kids at that age.

Let me know if you end up breaking off the engagement, but still need a guy to have some more white babies with. I'd send you a dick pic, but when I tried to do the upload, I got an error message, "This file is bigger than the server is configured to allow"! Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

How are you not blocked, you sexist, racist pig? But yes, I'm white. DanielleD (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

There was already a case in the coop discussing this where RW decided to welcome him here because of the slogan: "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." —Evo and Meta (speak, speak) | Look at what I've done! 01:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

If someone acted like that with me in person I would kick them in the balls. I hope he is just trolling and doesn't actually think like that. DanielleD (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

From a biological perspective 20 years old is the ideal age to have children. I may be wrong but I recall reading somewhere that the chance of a fetus developing autism goes from essentially nothing when the mother is 20 to 3% by the time she is 40. In general, everything starts to degrade as a person ages and I know the risk of genetic disorders and other issues are higher for children born to older mothers. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

So basically those old people are jealous? DanielleD (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Our problem is not that people have children at 20 -- or at 16, which is hardly unexpected either. Our problem is that we have institutions that we expect young people to attend, but which do not make allowances for young mothers of 16 or 20. We'd officially prefer that young women dose themselves with synthetic hormones to turn their lady bits off, rather than deal with infants in the MBA classrooms. When culture goes to war with biology, culture loses. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

People have been judgmental since the dawn of time, and all that changes is who/what we are judgmental against, not how judgmental humans are.

As for your situation, you are being lumped in with other people in your "demographic". You are an honor student and all, but most 20 year old single moms aren't, so even as good as you are people will see you as just another *insert perjorative*. This is the same with just about everything. I could be obese due to pituitary issues or side effects from psychiatric drugs, but since 90% of all obesity is self-inflicted, if I'm in a rascal at Walmart people are going to assume I'm just another lazy dumb fatass rather than someone who has 'valid' reasons for being fat. CorruptUser (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

About that comment that "20 years old is the ideal age to have children"... I just want to add that aren't girls going through puberty earlier? I think I remember hitting my first period when I was 12, but I think some girls are getting it earlier and earlier. I kind of wonder, if culture delays us getting married and having children until mid-30's, then why are we undergoing puberty earlier? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

If the above "questionable content" by MRE is not harassment, then I don't know what is. I have given him a long-term block. Given his lack of constructive work here and his trollish behavior, I don't see why we need to tolerate such behavior. Bongolian (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Feminism is a belief system of privileged white women and the white knights men who cater to them. But, uh oh, because of white women's heeding feminists' call to postpone marriage and childbearing till their 30s, that population is in demographic collapse! Who's going to carry the torch in the future? The women's studies departments and anti-human-trafficking NGOs will be as empty and silent as a raided Egyptian tomb.

I like how the article you linked discusses neither gender nor feminism. It simply states that the proportion of white people in the US has gone down in recent history and will continue to go down for the foreseeable future. Then, by mechanisms you fail to elaborate on, extrapolate that into the decline of "feminism", as per your definition of the term. It's easy to feel smart when you live inside your own head, isn't it? 98.110.112.28 (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Rest assured that if white people's population declines, their roles will be taken over by non-whites. And unless something ELSE changes, non-whites occupying those economic roles will not find breeding more economically rewarding than the white people did. As their status rises, their birthrate too will decline. This is close to a human universal. The higher up the ladder you go, the less advantage there is in breeding children, and at a sufficiently high status breeding is only an expensive, time consuming hobby, and basically a vanity project. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That's true, but there is a fundamental, socioscientific explanation (if that word exists) as to why in any country (not just "white" ones) like Japan or Italy its demographics decline. —Evo and Meta (speak, speak) | Look at what I've done! 02:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, again MRE may have a somewhat valid point expressed in an overly inflammatory and trollish way. People who espouse feminism are largely secular or religious liberals, and seculars and religious liberals have a low population growth rate. Religious conservatives, and especially ultra-conservative groups – such as ultra-orthodox Jews, the Amish, Mormon polygamists, etc – have a far higher population growth rate, but also espouse patriarchial anti-feminism. So, it appears in the long run that patriarchial anti-feminists may well conquer and destroy feminism through outbreeding. Of course, as Keynes said, "in the long run we're all dead", and I think the overrun of feminism by exponential (ultra-)conservative population growth is something none of us will likely live to see, but still I think it probably will eventually happen. Vale feminism. (((Zack Martin)))™ 10:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I think focusing on just population is only part of the picture and MRE's argument is very flimsy and focused on a demographic based on a shaky definition (race) and how they're supposedly "dying out". I think it's pretty simplified as feminism falls under "egalitarian" attitudes. I mean, abolitionists... they were a numerical minority but there are still a strong and healthy amount of people that are and need to advocate racial equality even today. And to categorize feminism as a white woman's thing, I guess it's partially correct, but it may be undergoing a more broad appeal as we have currently a third-wave feminism movement which focuses on women's issues around the world and so it's attracting more diverse people. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The racial element in MRE's argument is rather silly, no doubt. Obviously feminism is not restricted to white people–although, it is pretty much restricted to secularists and religious liberals (of all races), so their overall low fertility bodes poorly for its future. (And I don't think race by itself does much to determine birth rates – education levels, social class, religiosity, etc., play a much bigger role, and the apparent associations between race and birth rates is really due to the correlations between race and those other factors than due to race alone.) I was steelmanning him, picking on the aspect of his case which I thought had some validity and ignoring the elements of his case which I didn't think were supportable. MRE isn't very good at making coherent arguments, but there is at times some nugget of sense in there which can be rationally extended in interesting directions. And I'm not sure abolitionism is really a relevant comparison–reintroducing slavery is a rather fringe idea, with few actual supporters anywhere–by contrast, patriarchial antifeminism is far from a fringe idea, it remains alive and well over much of the planet. While obviously there are a lot of economic advantages to having a workforce in which women are highly educated and active in the economy, it isn't clear if that strategy can in the long-run beat the competing patriarchial strategy in which women instead focus on having as many children as possible, and on indoctrinating those children into a religious worldview. (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

There are patriarchal strategies that can be deployed if fertility is that big a deal. I read recently about Usama bin Ladin's four wives and eighteen children. Polygamy and harems do wonders for the reproductive success of upper class males. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry feminists, this discussion isn't actually even hinting at the idea that such patriarchal strategies are even acceptable and that women reproductive rights are a kind concession of men, isn't it not. This is not bro talking from their point of view, articulating a machiavellian plan which involves disposing on women bodies if there was the case to win the presumed breeding war with conservatives, as if they could revoke the concession of women autonomy over their bodies in any moment to take control of them if it were the case :). Because needless to say, you can't. Yeah, MraE has definitely a point, if only he were more educated in exposing it, the problem was his cussing. We might think the idea of feminism at "fault" for decreased fertility rate and that it's a tired plot device to use fear of muslim, black or other boogeyman outbreeding and genociding whites, to justify control on women bodies, assuming any race or culture is an isolated community with a hive mind and determined on ethnic substitution of "regular" whites, using women bodies. It's definitely the case with fundamentalists of all kind, I won't say it's not, but what about the coherence between means and ends (this little known) if we even fantasize of enabling such narrative for which sex equality is at fault and has a problem with fertility. First of all, overpopulation, a fertility war would only lead to this, on top of being a vile battle over the control of women bodies. Then, economy inequality, insecurity and exploitaiton is again at fault. Although desperate poverty, especially among emarginated groups, especially popular-religious as said, might ambivalently contribute to overbreeding as a survival mean, in spite of economical security, having less to lose, as they grow to be better off (like you illustrated in case of black people outbreeding, which, though, I don't see why would they necessarily have such a plan against whites and only reproduce among them) they would also likely slow down to stationary- moderately positive or decreasing. I wouldn't paint conservative with such a broad brush, women among them also benefit from feminist movements and the resulting equality and are often quite ambitious, I doubt they are so submitting, when some criticize feminism, they have strawman in mind and don't know the history or, more wisely distinguish second and third wave and the part of it they perceive as mysandrist. This is pretty much a paranoid power struggle fantasy of Rotk or such ultraconservative fringe blogs in which I actually read such a plan in which they hope to outbreeding debauchè liberals and then beat them. How desperate. On being more "natural" to reproduce at 20 for women, I have nothing against those who want, no judgement, although some here said judging is natural too, but one think is making valutations which we all do, another is enabling prejudice and condemning for the wrong reasons. Mind the naturalistic fallacy ;). Now, I read somewhere that not always, even naturally speaking the younger the better for women, that might be true for over 35, but not for below +-20. Also there is now the genetic evaluation, which allows all kinds of planning, on top of fertility age possibly already in the verge of extending, still due to scientific progress and life expectation (which of course, though, is far from linearly aligning with fertility age expectation, but still) . Still, let's talk instead about tackling the problem, from the more important economic angle, preventing wealth concentration and the impoverishment which comes with it, along with the decline in work rights. Also something has to be done against cradle strong religious fundamentalist indoctrination, be it from Christians or Muslims. Without demonizing religion in general, but literalism. This is especially rampant among evangelicals. This idea of anti indoctrination is something many Christians (but atheists too) are for, but only when it comes to Muslims, see the idea of banning the Quran, needless to say, hypocrisy elevated to nth.--78.15.253.193 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

What on Earth are you on about? Christopher (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I might admit that I simply have been too lengthy, because the topic was too complex to be exausted in a few lines. And even then, it's far from being exausted, because fortunately, we never run out of things to learn. You might not agree with something I have said, no problem, but if you think I am on something, it's too bad I am not, otherwise I'd gladly suggest it to you, if you allow me to kid a little about it :). Do you see what I was responding to and it's implications, along with a bit of irony. We need to reflect about it, sometimes. No offence taken at your joke.--78.15.253.193 (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I am really struggling to make out what you were trying to say. You raise numerous issues but I am struggling to detect an overarching point or argument. You seem to be mixing questions of Ought (whether patriarchial antifeminist strategies are morally acceptable) and Is (whether their proponents will prosper or dwindle in the long-term.) The philosophical question of the relationship between Ought and Is is very complex, so I think we should either keep them clearly separated, or else if you are going to argue for some linkage between them, you should be very explicit about exactly what you think that linkage is. You also seem to be mixing in a lot of racial stuff, when as I've said I think questions of race aren't very relevant to the question of the long-term demographic prospects of feminist vs antifeminist communities, and so should probably be kept out of the discussion. I mean, are Amish a different "race" from the US white majority? They look pretty white to me. And even ultra-Orthodox Jews, although neo-Nazis will insist that "Jews aren't white", and I know even some Jews have expressed mixed feelings about the "white" label, in terms of physical appearance there is very little difference between Ashkenazi Jews and other Europeans, so if we are going to define "race" in terms of physical appearance, then ultra-Orthodox Jews (who in the US are predominantly Ashkenazi) are clearly "white" (and Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews are "white" too, if we take "white" to equal the US Census Bureau's definition of "Caucasian"). There is no direct connection between "race" and fertility rates, because fertility rates are determined by reproductive behaviour, by culture, not by the color of your skin. Observed correlations between "race" and fertility are actually indirect, they are consequences of the correlations which existing between biological ancestry and culture. So, contrary to alt right fantasies of "white genocide", the highest fertility groups in the US are actually "white", which suggests a growing white majority in the long term (even while other forces are currently shrinking the relative share of the current white majority, a lot of those other forces are historically much more temporary.) Your suggestion that poorer immigrant groups decline in fertility as they become more economically secure is quite true, but not really relevant to the question of Amish or ultra-Orthodox Jewish demographics, since neither are particularly recent immigrant groups, and they show clear signs of deviating from the normal demographic trajectory for immigrant minorities. I think linking this to the question of Muslim immigration doesn't make much sense, because most Muslims are probably going to follow the standard demographic trajectory of declining fertility over the generations–and while the Amish and ultra-Orthodox Jews show some minority groups can succeed in deviating from that trajectory, it seems doubtful that most Muslims will do so. On a final point, I think what MRAs have to say is pretty irrelevant to this overall, because when MRAs talk about antifeminism, the Amish and the ultra-Orthodox are very much not what they have in mind. MRAs show no signs of higher fertility (if anything I think the MRA ideology encourages lower fertility–"don't bother having kids because your wife will just divorce you and get full custody and make you pay child support while her new partner takes your role as father"), so their long-term demographic prospects are no better than that of feminism. MRAism and feminism are both fundamentally species of secularism, and so both are about as demographically threatened as secularism as a whole is. (((Zack Martin)))™ 03:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the insight. Sorry for my grammar horrors :), it also led to some misunderstanding, as not sure if you meant to say that I brought out race to make racialist argument, linking groups behaviors to the dominant race groups that composes them at genetical level, etc. I didn't. Exactly, there are correlation with the dominant biological traits and culture, but not causations and Jews are really of all types. Fertility is based on the dominant culture of a group and how strict and prevalence is the adherence to it. Sorry if I sensed a hint of "ought" in the analysis at first. I probably failed to convey the ironic overtones, partly because of grammar and lengthiness, especially the one about MRE being apparently right in his main point and the probelm being his cussing and flaming. My point was that part of the lower fertility is economical insecurity and not feminism and women autonomy, reproductive rights and participation, etc. At least there are given thresholds, asthere's apparently a mix of cultural and economical factors and how they intermingle. Capitalism's paradigmatic crisis hit the fertility rate of then economically secure, certainly not outright rich people, so, to a certain point economical growth abates survival fertility, also favours the yielding of secular culture, but at the opposite, being hit by crisis in such condition tends to pospose kids in the search and sight of further economic stability. I also wanted to resize the idea of there being such breeding wars and what you said seems to further reinforce it even more than I myself tend to thing, basically resizing the idea of muslim demographic bomb, because as you said, they also follow, although I'd say to different outcomes because of their culture, the pattern of fertility dropping after improving general conditions, I hope despite Erdogan and Saudi's exortation to breed like there's no tomorrow :). Mra's and Mgtow are very diverse and some of them mingle with extremely traditional anti women rights conservative groups, not all of them are mra's but them and part of the Mra's share the same fantasy, controlling women and their reproductive rights, they think the traditional and religious whites can and should outbreed others, the usual external boogeymen, of course, but also those "debauchè" white liberals, feminists and their "cucks" (lol). Reactionaries are not linear and they might use secular values to hit non westerns as well as traditional christian ones. So basically it's not mra's in themselves, but part of the main argument is ultra orthodox conservatives many Mra fantasize being as they "govern" the women, might outbreed seculars. But if we mean Amish and Orthodox jews, maybe including the holywarmongering Trump happy part of evangelical, they seem a minority, are they steady growing so much? And if muslims, quite conservative (mainly also due to geopolitical situation and salafism being pushed worldwide without control at least until recently, but we might talk about that elsewhere ^_^) are also decreasing fertility, according to you, why wouldn't white conservatives as well share that pattern? Also, at some point they would have to share resources and inconsiderate reproduction might be dangerous in terms of overpopulation, while on the other hand, as said, secular groups are likely to breed more if the social conditions improve, although still inside a reasonable average, because of birth control, little reasons to go into religiously driven breeding wars which imply directly or indirectly control of women bodies. Cya :) --78.15.253.193 (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You are right that economic insecurity leads some people to delay having children or to have fewer children. However, even in the best possible economic conditions, secular people still tend to have relatively few children. It is not unheard of for some ultra-Orthodox Jews to have even twelve(!) children; even in the best possible economic conditions, secular people are unlikely to choose to have families that large. Another fertility advantage possessed by ultra-conservative religious groups such as ultra-Orthodox Jews is that people start families much younger (e.g. at 18 instead of in their late twenties or even thirties); secular people show little interest in doing this even when it is economically feasible for them. If you tell people "wait until you feel ready to have kids before having them, and in the meantime feel free to use whatever forms of birth control you feel are right for you", most people will wait until their late twenties or even thirties to have kids, and then only have 2 or 3, maybe 4. If you tell people "you must get married at age 18, birth control is a sin, God wants you to have as many children as possible", that's how they end up with a dozen kids. Religion is a much bigger factor in fertility than economics. You ask "if muslims, quite conservative... are also decreasing fertility, according to you, why wouldn't white conservatives as well share that pattern?" If you've been following, I haven't been making this argument about white conservatives in general. I've been making it about a certain type of high fertility isolationist religious sect of which I cite Old Order Amish and ultra-Orthodox Jews as examples. I believe these sects are structured that they avoid this general pattern/trajectory. White conservatives collectively don't constitute such a sect, so as a whole I don't see them avoiding the usual trajectory/pattern, although there are subgroups within them which do constitute such sects and so may do so. Likewise, Islam as a whole doesn't constitute such a sect, but there may be sects like the Old Order Amish and ultra-Orthodox Jews within Islam too. (I don't know enough about Islam to comment confidently on whether such sects exist in it or not.) You call Muslims "quite conservative", but I think most Muslim immigrants are actually rather moderate relative to the societies they are coming from (even if what is moderate in those societies sometimes seems rather conservative or even extreme by Western standards), and their moderation suggests their descendants are unlikely to resist the allure of secularisation/liberalisation/assimilation/intermarriage. (((Zack Martin)))™ 12:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)